American Ideas and Ideals

For those of us who fear that BushCorp is using the terror of 9/11 to destroy the values that make America worthy of saving, Jack Grant, writing at The Moderate Voice, has an excellent (though long) essay on the subject. Here's a taste, but really, you should read it all, isn't your freedom worth it?

There are few things in this world in which I firmly believe, and even fewer that I am willing to stand up for. The ideas of freedom and democracy are among those precious few.

There is a critical difference between ideals and ideas.

The ideal of America has been murdered in the past five years by the actions of the government of the United States, but the ideas underlying America have not yet been destroyed.

The ideas of freedom and democracy are what I believe in. What are the gravest threats to these ideas, an external threat of terrorist organizations who kill people to get headlines, or those who claim the world changed on September 11, 2001 and say that to protect our "freedom" we must push aside the ideas of civil liberties in order to provide safety against terrorist threats?

In other words, there are those who say that we must kill the patient in order to "cure" the disease. This is a solution that appeals to the simple-minded, but not to those who truly understand the fundamentals underlying our Constitution.

What is clear to me is that which is the true threat, and that threat is NOT the one commonly perceived.

It is often quoted, by me as much as by others, something that was written by one of my heroes, Benjamin Franklin, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Those who proclaim "the world changed on 9/11" as an argument towards undermining the freedoms we had against government surveillance of our lives understand neither the nature of the world before September 11, 2001, nor do they understand the foundations underlying our Constitution.

The best of GOP governance

In today's Washington Post Harold Meyerson observes that incompetence is BushCorp™'s defining feature:

Incompetence is not one of the seven deadly sins, and it's hardly the worst attribute that can be ascribed to George W. Bush. But it is this president's defining attribute. Historians, looking back at the hash that his administration has made of his war in Iraq, his response to Hurricane Katrina and his Medicare drug plan, will have to grapple with how one president could so cosmically botch so many big things -- particularly when most of them were the president's own initiatives.

He follows with a nice rundown on the administration's multitudinous failures. And just in case you're not familiar with the latest:

It's the president's prescription drug plan (Medicare Part D), though, that is his most mind-boggling failure. As was not the case in Iraq or with Katrina, it hasn't had to overcome the opposition of man or nature. Pharmacists are not resisting the program; seniors are not planting car bombs to impede it (not yet, anyway). But in what must be an unforeseen development, people are trying to get their medications covered under the program. Apparently, this is a contingency for which the administration was not prepared, as it has been singularly unable to get its own program up and running.

Initially, Part D's biggest glitch seemed to be the difficulty that seniors encountered in selecting a plan. But since Part D took effect on Jan. 1, the most acute problem has been the plan's failure to cover the 6.2 million low-income seniors whose medications had been covered by Medicaid. On New Year's Day, the new law shifted these people's coverage to private insurers. And all hell broke loose.

Read the whole article, but let me suggest a further conclusion. Bush's failures are not sole the result of incompetence. They are the result of the inherent Republican belief that government is the problem, not the solution, to quote GOP Saint Reagan.

And I must ask my fellow citizens, what sense does it make to put government in the charge of those who hold such a belief?

In many ways then, this is the best GOP government we'll ever have. Think about that.

The cost of war

The reasons against the war in Iraq sometimes seem as numerous as stars in the desert sky, and, at least to some, as compelling. The cost in American and Iraqi lives, those of the dead as well as those of the maimed, could well move one to tears.

In political terms, the costs could be, conceivably, even worse. The loss of US goodwill and crediblity with the international community is something that may take decades to repair, if it is even possible to do so. The costs of this loss, as well as the weakening of our armed forces, seem to be playing out in the showdown with Iran over nuclear weapons, and seem to be part of our continuing difficultie with North Korea as well.

It strikes me as incredibly ironic that the US' ill-advised attack on Iraq, designed by the neocons to bulk up US credibility, has instead managed to degrade it.

But since GOPers seem immune to any number of arguments against the war in Iraq, I thought it would be helpful to put it in terms the typical Republican can identify with: money.

According to a new analysis by Nobel Laureate Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard budget expert Linda Bilmes, the actual economic costs of the Iraqi war vastly overshadow both the administration's current requests, as well as their laughable pre-war estimates. Writing in the LA Times:

LAST WEEK, at the annual meeting of the American Economic Assn., we presented a new estimate for the likely cost of the war in Iraq. We suggested that the final bill will be much higher than previously reckoned — between $1 trillion and $2 trillion, depending primarily on how much longer our troops stay. Putting that into perspective, the highest-grossing movie of all time, "Titanic," earned $1.8 billion worldwide — about half the cost the U.S. incurs in Iraq every week.

Like the iceberg that hit the Titanic, the full costs of the war are still largely hidden below the surface. Our calculations include not just the money for combat operations but also the costs the government will have to pay for years to come. These include lifetime healthcare and disability benefits for returning veterans and special round-the-clock medical attention for many of the 16,300 Americans who already have been seriously wounded. We also count the increased cost of replacing military hardware because the war is using up equipment at three to five times the peacetime rate. In addition, the military must pay large reenlistment bonuses and offer higher benefits to reenlist reluctant soldiers. On top of this, because we finance the war by borrowing more money (mostly from abroad), there is a rising interest cost on the extra debt.

Our study also goes beyond the budget of the federal government to estimate the war's cost to the economy and our society. It includes, for instance, the true economic costs of injury and death. For example, if an individual is killed in an auto or work-related accident, his family will typically receive compensation for lost earnings. Standard government estimates of the lifetime economic cost of a death are about $6 million. But the military pays out far less — about $500,000. Another cost to the economy comes from the fact that 40% of our troops are taken from the National Guard and Reserve units. These troops often earn lower wages than in their civilian jobs. Finally, there are macro-economic costs such as the effect of higher oil prices — partly a result of the instability in Iraq.

To a liberal like myself, these numbers raise thoughts about how much of the US' badly degraded social safety net could've been shorn up by that money. How many improvements in healthcare and education could've been fully funded. How many lives could've been improved.

But for my Republican friends, in terms you can understand, just think of how many tax-cuts and faith-based programs might've been funded, how many fences raised along the border with Mexico, how many more FBI agents to analyze the President's illegal wiretaps.

You'd think it'd be enough to make Rush Limbaugh cry.

Time to upturn the pigtrough

I don't frequently agree, as one might guess, with conservative pundit George Will.

Mr. Will however, is at least the sort of conservative who has, to date, largely shunned the BushCorp™, power for power's sake kool-aid. And like many an honest (or at least sincere) conservative, he seems truly disheartened by the level of corruption in the Republican party.

Now one may ask why, just now, is this long time DC insider so interested in cleaning up congress. Couldn't be a belated effort to save the GOP's elephantine ass on the Abramoff corruption scandal or anything? Nah.

But be that as it may, Mr. Will has recently shown that even political hacks can come to wisdom.

And on what subject does your CaliBlogger agree with the wiley Mr. Will?

Earmarks.

As I wrote last week:

As has been shown over and over again, efforts to reduce the flow of money, either directly on indirectly into politicians' pockets have proven futile. If corporations and wealthy individuals have both money to spend and an expectation it'll buy them a favor, they'll find a way. What campaign finance laws and such really do is serve as full employment insurance for millions of very clever lawyers looking for the (inevitable it seems) loophole.

No, rather than throw down a rather porous gauntlet for interest groups and their battalions of lawyers, better to enforce a very simple rule for a few hundred congresscritters: No more earmarks.

If lobbyists can no longer count on getting a specific bit of legislation into the books simply by getting Congressman X seats for the Superbowl, they'll be much less inclined to even try. These are businessmen after all, and like any good businessman, a lobbyist will want to get the most bang for the buck. So if no bang is there to be had, neither will be the bucks.

No doubt having read an advanced copy of my LTE to the Pasadena Star-News (read it here), Mr. Will, in an effort, no doubt to avoid getting "scooped" on the idea, rushed into yesterday's Washington Post:

Forbid appropriations to private entities. Government money should flow directly to government agencies -- federal, state or local. And those agencies should be required to formally testify that local projects receiving national funding serve essential national needs. Appropriations that are, in effect, cash flows from individual representatives to private entities are invitations to corruption. Federal money directed to private entities was what ex-representative Duke Cunningham (R-Calif.) was bribed to deliver.

So, end "earmarks." They write into law a representative's or senator's edict that a particular sum be spent on a particular project in his or her state or district.

And while such suggestions may be mere CYA attempts by conservatives in the face of the GOP's Abramoff corruption scandal, still, I believe suggestions like those made by Arizona Republican, Rep. Jeff Flake have merit:

Flake proposes legislation that would prohibit federal agencies from funding any earmark not contained in a bill's actual legislative language. And the bill would allow a point of order to prevent the waiving of House rules against including non-germane spending -- earmarks not included in either House or Senate spending bills -- in conference reports.

I strongly doubt that the GOP as a whole would even consider endangering the support they receive from their corporate masters, support based on the many little billion dollar favors a Congressman can give.

Which presents an opportunity for Democrats to stand up for real reform, and stand up against earmarks.

And I would certainly support any candidate who can honestly answer yes to the following question: Do you support the complete elimination of Congressional earmarks?

A blogosphere breakthrough

We interrupt our usual programming to announce a blogosphere exclusive, Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice has the hookup to: THE BEST BLONDE JOKE EVER.

Enjoy.

Truthiness, justice and the American way

If you're not a fan of the Colbert Report...well why not?

But anyway, mock pundit (in the way Jon Stewart is a mock newsman), Stephen Colbert is already impacting the American lexicon, even if he's not getting credit for it.

Adam Green has the call:

Harkening back to October 17, 2005, the night the Colbert Report debuted on Comedy Central, Colbert replayed his first Word of the Day: Truthiness.

At the time he had joked, "Now I'm sure some of the Word Police, the wordanistas over at Webster's, are gonna say, 'Hey, that's not a word.'" But on Monday, Colbert swollowed (sic) his pride - he admitted he was wrong. Because it turns out, this week the American Dialect Society voted "truthiness" the 2005 word of the year. Colbert commented:

Press article announcing this prestigious award - written by one Heather Clark - had a glaring omission: Me. I'm not mentioned, despite the fact that truthiness is a word I pulled right out of my keyster.

Instead of coming to me, here's where Ms. Clark got the definition. "Michael Adams, a professor at North Carolina State university who specializes in lexicology, said 'truthiness' means 'truthy, not facty.'"

First of all, I looked him up. He's not a professor, he's a vising associate professor. And second, it means a lot more than that, Michael.

I don't know what you're getting taught over there in English 201 and 324 over at Tompkins Hall, Wolfpack. But it isn't truthiness.

In fact, the AP article misses the entire satirical point, that truthiness is the kind of mindset that makes people believe Saddam was involved in 9/11 and al Qaeda and that eolution is "just" a theory.

And though I suspect that the real culprit is some editor, the object of Stephen's wrath is the woman with the byline on the article, Heather Clark.

The truth is clear from American Dialect Society's website
.

And if you'd like to politely suggest a correction I'd suggest contacting Ms. Clark.

And, as Mr. Green suggests:

And if you're on the fence about whether to contact her, don't just do it for Colbert. Do it in the name...of truthiness.

Congress: Reform thyself

As DC Republicans nervously wait for the scandals to hit the fan in the Abramoff bribery debacle, they are also devoting a lot of energy (hot air mainly) to something called "lobbying reform".

You have, or will soon see, a plethora of news articles like this one from the Washington Post:

Hill Weighs Curbs on Lobbying:
More Disclosure, Ban on Sponsored Trips Under Consideration

By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 12, 2006; Page A04

Congress is poised to pass measures early this year that would clamp down on lobbying activity and possibly end some lawmaker travel.

Lawmakers are moving quickly to devise lobbying legislation and to approve it soon after Congress returns later this month. The rush has been caused by recent lobbying scandals, including the guilty plea last week of lobbyist Jack Abramoff, who is cooperating with prosecutors in a corruption investigation of Congress.

But while I think that more disclosure is great and that bans on exorbitant gifts and trips are long overdue, if the goal is to eliminate much of the outright quid pro quo horse-trading that passes for government these days, at least one of two other things must happen.

Congresscritters must be forbidden from accepting campaign contributions from lobbyists and their surrogates and/or they must give up the ability to place earmarks in legislation.

And of the two, I believe that eliminating the earmark would be far the most effective anit-corruption tactic, and thus the most dificult to enact.

As I've earlier remarked while blogging on governmental malfeasance in both the preparation for disasters like Katrina, as well as FEMA's inadequate response (a state of affairs that continues today by the way, though in Texas and Oklahoma):

Currently the administration and congress are seeking to divert attention from their corrupt and irresponsible behavior by focusing their wrath on the admittedly woefully inadequate disaster response. But as heads cool, and minds take over, it is past time to hold the President, and especialy Congress responsible for the pork-laden earmark process and the feckless use of our nation's resources.

As we can see from the potentially avoidable tragedy of New Orlean's burst levees, such negligence borders on the criminal, if not the treasonous.

The Congressional earmark process must be severly curtailed, if not eliminated entirely, and in the 2006 mid-terms I expect a promise to that effect from any Congresscritter with the barest hope of being elected.

As has been shown over and over again, efforts to reduce the flow of money, either directly on indirectly into politicians' pockets have proven futile. If corporations and wealthy individuals have both money to spend and an expectation it'll buy them a favor, they'll find a way. What campaign finance laws and such really do is serve as full employment insurance for millions of very clever lawyers looking for the (inevitable it seems) loophole.

No, rather than throw down a rather porous gauntlet for interest groups and their battalions of lawyers, better to enforce a very simple rule for a few hundred congresscritters: No more earmarks.

If lobbyists can no longer count on getting a specific bit of legislation into the books simply by getting Congressman X seats for the Superbowl, they'll be much less inclined to even try. These are businessmen after all, and like any good businessman, a lobbyist will want to get the most bang for the buck. So if no bang is there to be had, neither will be the bucks.

Until congress takes this simple step, any "reform" will be just so much windowdressing.

The REPUBLICAN Corruption Scandal

Despite what you'll be hearing from GOPer liars spinmeisters, Democrats have never taken ANY bribes from Casino Jack Abramoff. DNC chairman Howard Dean smacks down Wolf Blitzer. The transcript is from Kos:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, who has now pleaded guilty to bribery charges, among other charges, a Republican lobbyist in Washington, should the Democrat who took money from him give that money to charity or give it back?

DEAN: There are no Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff, not one, not one single Democrat. Every person named in this scandal is a Republican. Every person under investigation is a Republican. Every person indicted is a Republican. This is a Republican finance scandal. There is no evidence that Jack Abramoff ever gave any Democrat any money. And we've looked through all of those FEC reports to make sure that's true.

BLITZER: But through various Abramoff-related organizations and outfits, a bunch of Democrats did take money that presumably originated with Jack Abramoff.

DEAN: That's not true either. There's no evidence for that either. There is no evidence...

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

DEAN: Senator Byron Dorgan and some others took money from Indian tribes. They're not agents of Jack Abramoff. There's no evidence that I've seen that Jack Abramoff directed any contributions to Democrats. I know the Republican National Committee would like to get the Democrats involved in this. They're scared. They should be scared. They haven't told the truth. They have misled the American people. And now it appears they're stealing from Indian tribes. The Democrats are not involved in this.

BLITZER: Unfortunately Mr. Chairman, we got to leave it right there.

Crooks and liars has the video.

You dirty rat...

Ah for the good old days of Jimmy Cagney gangster flicks, when you could tell the good guys from the bad.

In news that further re-inforces the Republican corruption as a bad gangster flick image (see fedora Jack Abramoff here) Time is reporting that Duke Cunningham wore a wire while co-operating with the feds.

Washington's power players have always bragged about being well-wired, but for disgraced former congressman Duke Cunningham, "wired" wasn't just a figure of speech. In a week when legislators are focused on the question of who else might be brought down by ex-lobbyist Jack Abramoff’s cooperation with prosecutors as he seeks lenient sentencing over his two federal guilty pleas this week, sources tell TIME that in a separate investigation, ex-Rep. Cunningham wore a wire to help investigators gather evidence against others just before copping his own plea.

Many before me have suggested the idea of the Bush crime family and I've already resisted the tendancy. But doesn't this stuff begin to remind you of an old episode of Law and Order?

Washington DC, where the government is corrupt and the Republicans are nervous.

The Saturday Column: Whither now the governator?

If, as a noted English writer once said the past is prologue, then we can perhaps guess the future course of Schwarzenegger's newest initiatives.

In Thursday's State of the State address, the Republican governor outlined a series of proposals that would make any self-respecting Democrat weep with joy, including proposals to limit tuition fees for the state's universities, raise the minimum wage, and most ambitiously, to float a massive public works bond to shore up Califonia's woefully inadequate transportation systems.

I'll, no doubt, have more to say on all of these proposals as they near either fruition or failure in the coming year, but at the moment I wanted to look at their political implications.

Let's look at the Governator's record.

In the 2003 recall election which saw Arnold's ascent to the pinnacle of California politics featured promises of bi-partisanship and an end of the pay to play mindset so devastating to Gray Davis' career. And while the promise not to accept money from special inteests proved as specious as anyone paying attention to modern American politics would expect it to be, Arnold held largely to his pledge of bipartisan co-operation regarding the most important of his then proposals, the bond issue restructuring California's debt situation.

Well and good.

Then something funny happened.

Around the time of the 2004 Republican National Convention, someone (contributors no doubt) reminded Arnold that he is a Republican. His glowing support for Bush at the convention was inevitable if he was going to garner a a coveted primetime speaking spot, as was, no doubt, his support in the ensuing presidential campaign. But going further, he infuriated California Democrats by actively campaigning against them, including some who had bought Schwarzenegger's "spirit of bi-partisanship" rhetoric and supported his proposals.

Then in 2005 the other shoe, inevitably, dropped. The governator's State of the state message was a shot across the bow of Democrats and their supporters, as well as manna from heavan (to mix metaphors) for the very right wing California Republican party. Why this shift to the right?

To me, anyway, the answer is not entirely clear. Were Schwarzenegger's proposals to strike at a major Democratic constituency, unions, merely a reflection of Schwarzenegger's own pro-business tendancies (as well as his chamber of commerce type supporters)? Or was it a cynical ploy to shore up his Republican base (and build an enormous campaign war chest), anticipating this year's election year swing back to the center?

In the end I suppose it doesn't really matter, as we've now enough information to make an educated guess as to what Schwarzenegger's next year and his new administration (if re-elected) will look like.

My prognostication.

2006 will see Schwarzenegger making furious efforts to pass his proposed initiatives, his success to be determined largely by the political calculations made by the Democrat controlled legislature. Sacramento Democrats face a choice. Do they support the governor's proposals in an effort to show themselves as working in that much vaunted bi-partisan spirit? Do they kill the governor's proposals by either blocking them outright (unlikely) or by tacking on provisions (e.g. pro-union) that will prove impossible for Arnold to swallow?

My guess is that, after an enormous amount of horse-trading, relatively bi-partisan proposals will either be passed by Sacramento, or make it successfully to the ballot as initiatives.

I (for now) make no guesses as to the success of such ballot initiatives, but should he be re-elected one thing seems clear, expect Schwarzenegger to make another hard right turn. In 2007/8 he'll be looking to shore up (yet again) the Republican faithful and repay his campaign debts and prep himself (yet again) for the national spotlight of the 2008 Republican convention where the support of of a "moderate" Republican governor will (yet again) be coveted as a mask for the Republican party's wingnut true inner self.

California Democrats and independents are faced then with this choice: are the benefits of supporting Arnold's current proposals for a tuition freeze, increased minimum wage, and urgently needed infrastructure support worth the wingnut causes he'll no doubt espouse once re-elected?

And California Republicans face a similar choice, can they bite their tongues long enough to help Schwarzenegger get re-elected, counting on getting their due in 2007/8?

Jon Stewart to host Oscars

Too cool:

Jon Stewart, the Emmy-winning host and co-writer of Comedy Central's mock newscast "The Daily Show," today will be named host of the 78th Annual Academy Awards, three sources familiar with the selection process said Wednesday, ending months of speculation about the show's next emcee.

Academy officials and longtime Oscar producer Gil Cates have settled on Stewart, 43, who hosted the Grammy Awards in 2001 and 2002, the sources said.

One wonders what our favorite anti-BS (fake) newsguy will do with all the self-serving sincerity that is tinseltown, but it takes no crystal ball to note that BushCorp™ and friends seem hell bent on providing plenty of material.

Abramoff strikes deal with feds

As I expected, Casino Jack Abramoff today struck a deal with federal prosecuters to serve a lesser sentence for his various and sundry crimes in return for his co-operation in the ongoing investigations of his congresscritter clientele.

Super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff's guilty plea Tuesday to three felony counts sets the stage for the biggest congressional scandal perhaps in decades, certainly since the Republicans took over Congress 10 years ago, pledging clean government.

In exchange for his guilty pleas, in both the Washington case and a separate Florida case in which he was indicted last year, Mr. Abramoff will cooperate with federal prosecutors investigating members of Congress, Capitol Hill aides, and other lobbyists. Political players with ties to Abramoff and his network, who knew the lobbyist was preparing to cut a deal, have been sweating for months. Now they're sweating harder.

Though members of both parties are involved, analysts expect Republicans - who control both houses of Congress - to bear the brunt of the political fallout. Abramoff, who has close ties to former House majority leader Tom DeLay of Texas, allegedly funneled campaign donations to lawmakers, who were treated to lavish trips and meals, in exchange for official acts.

"It could end some careers," says Jennifer Duffy, an analyst at the non- partisan Cook Political report.

Ah yes, one can hope.

But further, I hope the Abramoff scandal not only brings down those who've vioalted the current law, but also exposes the extent of entirely legal corruption now permeating Washington.

For to a large degree it seems that Abramoff's greatest problem is that his dealings with congressmen simply went a little too far beyond the usual wink-wink, nudge-nudge of pay to play politics as usual. Abramoff's quid pro quos were simply too blatent.

And until such a time as election campaigns no longer cost millions per politician, lobbyists will continue to creep along the fine line of what's leagal and what's not. And some, like Abramoff, will occasionally cross over.

[Think Progress has a truly comprehensive breakdown of Abramoff's house of cards]

New Year's Resolution

To do everything my small voice allows me, to see that George W. Bush, for once in his life, actually faces the consequences of his actions.

2005: The Year of the Blog

Well, it's the end of the year. And while I spend my days pondering the
ramifications of my enormous (and typical) Christmas debt, I thought I'd
take a break and give a quick look at my first full year of blogging.

January: This month saw the first shots fired in Bush's war on Social
Security, as well as fights over the Gonzalez and Rice nominations. But my
favorite post from that month was prompted by a discussion I'd had at dailykos with a teacher and the deleterious
effects of No Child Left Behind.

February: As the battle to save Social Security continues I first note one
of the other major attack on the middle class safety net:, the new bankruptcy legislation, which, as predicted, is currently
making life even more difficult for people whose only wrong-doing was sheer
bad luck. Those most in the news are the survivors of hurricane Katrina who
are only now beginning to feel the pinch of this Credit Card company backed
legislation. However, those most likely to feel its bite (including you and
I) are those whose families have suffered a medical mishap.

March: This month came in like a lion with the very ugly Terry Schiavo
debacle stealing headlines from the height of the Soc Sec wars. More
importantly though, this is when I first publish my magnum opus on oil and the economy. Why I've yet to hear from the Nobel Prize
people is anybody's guess.

April: Big news month here with the death of John Paul II and the first
stirrings of the Abramoff, Delay et al. corruption scandal breaking. The
biggest move though is your CaliBlogger's move to a blogger.com site and his
series of posts on boomers: Mortality and the whiniest generation, Boomers and healthcare, and Death and the whiniest generation, part 2. What? Not
a peep from the Pulitzer people either?

May: Deep Throat is finally revealed to a general reaction of: who's that? With the exception of former Nixon henchmen who were decrypted to lather on about what a great guy Tricky Dick was and how Mark Felt betrayed the Preznit's God given right to break any damn laws he pleases, we were at war damnit (sound familiar?)! Meanwhile the wingnuts suffered another pantytwist when an Amnesty International head called the US prisons in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo an "American Gulag". And given the recent revelations about black-op prisons scattered around the globe, the Gulag Archipelago reference has turned out to be all too true.

June: The final episode of Star Wars opens to a collective sigh of thank God that's over. More significantly your CaliBlogger his vision for an Iraqi withdrawal. Still no word from the Nobel Peace Prize people.

July: Bombs explode in London and Cairo (and Iraq of course, but then when don't they?). Your CaliBlogger posts twice urging Bush's impeachment in one month (double my usual number), and once outlining the Bush Doctrine

August: Your CaliBlogger celebrates his birthday. Oh yeah, and a hurricane levels a great American city. "Heckuva job Brownie" becomes destined to be stupid quote of the year.

September: The leaves turn color, kids return to school and Republican corruption charges begin to pile up like rush hour on the San Diego Freeway.

October: Tom Delay's woes continue and Scooter Libby is the first to be indicted in the Plamegate affair. But jillian has the call on the week's true scandal.

November: Randy "Duke" Cunningham's habit of wrapping himself isn't enough from being burned by federal bribery charges. Most amazing though, we witness the sudden growth of Spinus Democraticus.

December: All the Who's in Whoville are devastated when the secular "War on Christmas" is finally won.

Other stuff happened too.

Happy, healthy New Year to all!

Jack Abramoff

Remember this name: Jack Abramoff

Who is Jack Abramoff? From Wikipedia:

Jack A. Abramoff (born February 28, 1958) is a conservative American attorney and lobbyist.

Abramoff is a central figure in a series of high-profile political scandals linked mainly, but not exclusively, to Republican Party officials. He is under investigation:

* By federal grand juries for his involvement in the Abramoff-Reed Indian Gambling Scandal,[1].
* By a grand jury in Guam over a separate matter.
* He has also been indicted on August 11, 2005, by a third grand jury in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, for bank fraud arising out of an unrelated business deal.

He is also linked to a scandal involving a troubled multibillion-dollar Homeland Security contract.[2] Further, he made multiple payments to Doug Bandow, Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute, and at least one other think tank expert to write opinion pieces favorable to his clients.[3]

The investigations and indictments of Abramoff have taken on significant national importance because of the lobbyist's close political connections with leading national Republicans. Congressman Tom DeLay, former Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives, years ago called Abramoff one of his “closest and dearest friends.” Recent media reports indicate that Abramoff may be nearing a plea deal which would require Abramoff to disclose his complete knowledge of Congressional corruption.[4]

In January Casino Jack is due to stand trial in a fraud case to which his partner has already pled guilty. And the question is, will he start naming names in an effort to cut a deal with the Feds? This very possibility has the Republican establishment in Washington and elswhere dreaming of leg-irons rather than sugar-plums this Christmas season, for Abramoff's ties to the Republican are long and deep and none too squeaky-clean. According to Bullmoose blogger (and former John McCain advisor) Marshall Whitman:

The Abramoff corruption scheme was wide and deep. As we are learning, it touched upon every precinct in the Republican nation - from Members of Congress - to their staff - to the entire conservative political infrastructure. Old Jack may have even had his tentacles inside the White House.

According to press reports, Jack may soon start spilling the beans, and it will become clear that the GOP is swamped by the culture of corruption. That is why Republican operatives are beginning to spread the message that Democrats were also the beneficiaries of Abramoff largesse. The righteous right will be playing the moral equivalence card.

No doubt some Democrats benefitted from Abramoff-directed donations. But, they only received a small pittance compared to the manifold riches that Jack showered on the GOP establishment. Take it from the Moose. He saw firsthand how Abramoff and the gang insinuated themselves into the conservative infrastructure in the mid-nineties. He was there to witness the presentations at the Wednesday Norquist meetings on behalf of the Marianas sweatshops.

Since the GOP seized power in '94, the rules of the road in the GOP were to give overwhelmingly to Republicans. A small contribution to a Democrat was allowed here and there. Casino Jack played by those rules and that is why he was the good buddy of Tommy D[elay] and the leadership. And the conservative movement was awash in Jack's generosity.

Mr. Abramoff may well become the poster-boy for the culture of corruption rampant within the erstwhile law and order ranks of the GOP. As demonstrated by Preznit Bush himself and his disdain for anti-domestic spying laws, the GOP no longer believes the rule of law applies to itself. In the 2006 mid-term elections we have an opportunity to show that honest Americans believe otherwise.

RIP West Wing's Leo McGarry

John Spencer 1946-2005

I was saddened when his character had a heart attack, but this?

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Veteran character actor John Spencer, Emmy-winning star of NBC television drama "The West Wing," died on Friday at a Los Angeles hospital after suffering a heart attack, his spokesman said.

Spencer, 58, portrayed vice presidential candidate Leo McGarry on the widely watched series that portrays the inner workings of a fictional White House.

The McGarry character earned Spencer an Emmy, American television's highest honor, for best supporting actor in a drama in 2002. The show also earned Emmys for best TV drama and Screen Actors Guild awards for ensemble acting.

An agnostic's prayers go out for his family and friends.

[UPDATE: MSNBC has a good article including quotes from some of his cast mates]

One for the good guys

You may recall my post from a few days ago about Ford pandering to the bigots at AFA.

Well good news, Ford has seen the light.

To wit:

1. Ford announced that it will continue to support gay organizations and gay events in the coming year and beyond.

2. Ford is going to run advertisements in the gay media NOT ONLY promoting the Jaguar and Land Rover brands, but the ads will promote ALL of Fords brands, by name, including Jaguar and Land Rover.

3. Ford states unequivocally that it will continue to tailor its ads for the specific audience it is trying to reach, and then goes one step further. Ford challenges us to keep an eye out on their upcoming ads in order to verify that they will in fact be tailored.

And, as I encouraged you to voice your displeasure in my previous post, it only seems fair to encourage you to express your sincere thanks here.

Congrats to John Aravosis at AmericaBlog who led the blogosphere charge on this one.

As he points out, this win also shows the very thin veneer of support for groups like the AFA: the AFA has been shown to have no clothes (other than a very rusty chastity belt).

A holiday for the rest of us

Now that secular humanists have finally turned the corner in the War on Christmas, what are the rest of us to do with all the leftover eggnog?

Yep, what we need is a holiday for the rest of us.

We need.....

Festivus!

Have you driven a Ford lately?

Well, frankly, neither have I.

But rather than improve their crappy cars, the geniuses at Ford have come up with a better idea to shore up lagging sales: cater to wingnut bigots. From John Aravosis' Americablog:

"Ford Motor Co.'s decision to cease advertising in gay publications for its Jaguar and Land Rover luxury brands is part of a truce between the auto maker and the American Family Assn. (AFA) Ford has agreed not to sponsor any future gay and lesbian events." - Wards Auto, 12/7/05

"When asked if the advertising was being discontinued because of the threatened AFA boycott, [Ford Spokesman Mike] Moran said, 'Ceasing advertising is an outgrowth of those meetings.'" - Metro Weekly, 12/8/05

"They are acting on our concerns." - AFA Chairman Donald Wildman, NYT, 12/5/06

John provides some useful information if you'd like to contact various Ford bigwigs and flacks to express how happy you are that an American flagship company is caving in to the most hateful ideologues on the right.

If you'd like to work more along "think globally, act locally lines, here are links to Ford dealerships in Pasadena and LA. I'm sure they'd enjoy hearing from you.

Major Win in the Secularist War on Christmas

And you thought it would never come to this. From The Onion:

Activist Judge Cancels Christmas

WASHINGTON, DC—In a sudden and unexpected blow to the Americans working to protect the holiday, liberal U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Stephen Reinhardt ruled the private celebration of Christmas unconstitutional Monday.

"In accordance with my activist agenda to secularize the nation, this court finds Christmas to be unlawful," Judge Reinhardt said. "The celebration of the birth of the philosopher Jesus—be it in the form of gift-giving, the singing of carols, fanciful decorations, or general good cheer and warm feelings amongst families—is in violation of the First Amendment principles upon which this great nation was founded."

In addition to forbidding the celebration of Christmas in any form, Judge Reinhardt has made it illegal to say "Merry Christmas." Instead, he has ruled that Americans must say "Happy Holidays" or "Vacaciones Felices" if they wish to extend good tidings.

And a comment I overheard at the last gathering of the liberal, secularist, pro-science, illegal immigrant hugging, gay agenda promotional committee to destroy the values of the majority of God-fearing, white, Christian-Americans: "BWAHAHAHAHAHA"

Shameless, shameful

I've been light in my blogging lately due to a number of "real life" (ugh!) circumstances, all of which are still ongoing.

But I simply can not let today's news pass without comment.

If you can hark back to mid-November we heard this news:

Washington -- House Republicans, after weeks of negotiations, narrowly passed a budget bill early Friday to cut $50 billion from Medicaid, food stamps, student loans and other programs over the complaints of Democrats that Congress is squeezing students, the elderly and the poor to pay for tax cuts for the rich.

The House approved the bill 217-215, after GOP leaders agreed to demands from moderate Republicans to jettison a measure to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and to slightly reduce proposed cuts to food stamps.

Still, the vote was so politically sensitive that House leaders didn't begin debate until 10 p.m. Thursday and didn't pass the measure until nearly 2 a.m. -- when most news reporters gone and only a few C-SPAN junkies could witness the fiery floor action. No Democrats voted for the bill, and 14 Republicans opposed it.

Gosh, a bill that takes food and healthcare away from poor children, why would that be "politically sensitive"? IFacing the massive budget deficits wrought by the disastrous war in Iraq, and the just plain disaster of hurricane Katrina, surely everyone, even poor, hungry children, needs to do their part, right?

Apparently, not quite everyone:

The House today passed a $56 billion tax cut bill that extends for two years a reduction in tax rates for capital gains and dividend income.

Nice, cut spending for poor children by $50 billion in November, then in December give $56 billion to the rich in December. That's a heckuva Thanksgiving kick in the crotch treat for the poor, and really one heckuva holiday Christmas gift to the rich.

Shameless
Shameful

Another reason to hate Ann Coulter

Like you needed another reason:

MSNBC picks up on Ann Coulter's pathetically infantile attack on BRAD BLOG Guest Blogger Lydia Cornell by naming Coulter in their "Worst Person in the World" segment Friday. She receives this dubious honor for "posting the personal phone number and email of a blogger who was critical of her" and for otherwise referring to to groups who disagree with her as "Nazi block watchers."
...
[Blogger Lydia]Cornell and her family continue to receive harassment and threats via her personal email and phone number which Coulter supplied to her millions of her uncompassionate attack dog sycophants who (predictably) refuse to condemn Coulter's indefensable lapse of simple "netiquette" and common decency.

Calls and emails fron Ann Coulter fans. Eeek!

Victory Milestones in Iraq

In yesterday's speech, President Bush was a little slim on setting specific milestones that would delineate the road to victory in Iraq.

Personally I believe that Bush is selling himself short, displaying the soft-spoken modesty so characteristic of Texans, even ones with MBAs from Yale and summer homes in Kennebunkport, Maine.

Let's take a look at some real Iraqi progress.

Politics dominated by conservative religious groups? Check

Rampant government corruption? Check, check

Propaganda posing as real news? Check, check, check

Yep, just what I thought, the Iraqis are definitely on the road to American style democracy. Doesn't it make you proud?

A sane voice on immigration

In today's Washington Post Princeton University professor Douglas S. Massey elevates the current discussion of US/Mexican immigration above its current xenophobic shrillness.

His main points: that such immigration is inevitable, and that our current efforts at limiting it are not only ineffective, they are actually exacerbating the problem.

After Canada, Mexico is our largest trading partner. We share a border of almost 2,000 miles with Mexico, and trade that totals $286 billion a year. The movement of goods and services is accompanied by the movement of people. In 2004 some 175,000 legal immigrants arrived from Mexico, along with 3.8 million visitors for pleasure, 433,000 business visitors, 118,000 temporary workers, 25,000 intra-company transferees, 29,000 students and exchange visitors, and 6,200 traders and investors. At the same time, 1 million Americans live in Mexico and 19 million travel there each year as visitors. U.S. foreign direct investment in Mexico totals $62 billion annually.

These massive cross-border flows occur by design, under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement. But at the heart of NAFTA lies a contradiction: Even as the United States moves to promote free movement of goods, services, capital and information, we as a nation somehow seek to prevent the movement of labor. We wish to create a North American economy that integrates all markets except one: that for labor. [Emphasis mine - SK]

Which in part illuminates the divisions within the Republican party's stance on immigration. The pro-business, free-trade Republicans that Labor is part and parcel of free trade, their holy grail, something the fear-mongering, xenophobe catering element of the party just can't seem to reconcile with their own paranoia.

And our current efforts to limit migration are worse than ineffective:

Heightened border enforcement has not deterred would-be immigrants from entering the United States, nor has it reduced the size of the annual inflow. What it has done is channel migrants away from traditional crossing points to remote areas where the physical risks are great but the likelihood of getting caught is small. As a result, the number of deaths has risen to around 460 people a year while the probability of apprehension has fallen from a historical average of around 33 percent to around 10 percent.

We are spending more tax dollars to catch fewer migrants and cause more deaths, and once they are deflected from traditional crossing points, Mexicans have moved on to new destinations. Whereas two-thirds of Mexicans who came to the United States during 1985-90 went to California, in the past five years only one-third have done so. Our misplaced border policies have transformed what was a limited regional movement affecting three states into a mass migration to 50 states.

U.S. policies have also pushed Mexican migrants away from seasonal movement toward permanent settlement. Raising the costs and risks of undocumented entry has not deterred would-be migrants from coming.

Paradoxically, it has discouraged them from going home once they are here. Having faced the hazards of border crossing, undocumented migrants are loath to do so again, and instead they hunker down for the long term. As migrants stay away from home longer, they increasingly send for spouses and children.

Rather than remaining a circular flow of temporary male workers, migration from Mexico to the United States has produced a settled population of permanent residents and families, driving up immigration's social and economic costs to American taxpayers. [Emphasis mine - SK]

So.

Instead of criminalizing behavior that, at its base, is simply an expression of the continuing interconnectedness of our economies, we need to accept that labor is an inevitable, perhaps even desirable part of the immense amount of trade between the US and Mexico.

And instead of forcing people desiring only to better their lives to die in the desert, we rather should guide them through regular entry ports were they can be fingerprinted, photographed and licensed. Heck, we can make them pay their own license fee, better the US treasury than the local coyote, right?

If the main anti-immigrant voices were Democratic I could understand the protectionist impulse. But Republicans are famous for deferring to the twin gods of capitalism: supply and demand. Why are they then so afraid of letting those same forces guide the labor market?

Future Kansas Board of Education member?

I've never watched the show, is this thing for real?

Thanks to Andrew Sullivan for the heads up.

Fox's Bill O'Reilly: at war with jews?

Well, that's what I heard.

New package, same old sh*t

Oh for the naive gentler time of...yesterday, when optimists guessed that President Bush, bowing to both reality on the ground in Iraq, as well as public sentiment in the US, would finally announce his end-game for the war. Yes certainly, in what was being billed as a "major speech", Bush would finally clue the rest of us in on his grand vision.

Such idyllic hours.

Sadly, as it seems with most of Bush's "major" speeches, the speech in Annapolis was simply a re-packaging of the same ol' same ol'. And when I say repackage I mean that literally by way of a document called Victory in Iraq. Some highlights from today's speech:

"Our strategy in Iraq has three elements.

On the political side, we know that free societies are peaceful societies. So we're helping the Iraqis build a free society, with inclusive democratic institutions that will protect the interests of all Iraqis.

We're working with the Iraqis to help them engage those who can be persuaded to join the new Iraq and to marginalize those who never will.

On the security side, coalition and Iraqi security forces are on the offensive against the enemy, cleaning out areas controlled by the terrorists and Saddam loyalists, leaving Iraqi forces to hold territory taken from the enemy, and following up with targeted reconstruction to help Iraqis rebuild their lives.

As we fight the terrorists, we're working to build capable and effective Iraqi security forces, so they can take the lead in the fight and eventually take responsibility for the safety and security of their citizens without major foreign assistance.
And on the economic side, we're helping the Iraqis rebuild their infrastructure, reform their economy and build the prosperity that will give all Iraqis a stake in a free and peaceful Iraq."

So there. Now go shopping.

Or not.

As Dan Froomkin points out this is mere PR and fails to address the issues now on the minds of so many Americans:

* It doesn't answer the most compelling question in contemporary American politics: When are the troops coming home?

* It doesn't even include any objective ways of measuring progress towards an eventual U.S. pullout.

* It is at heart a restatement, rather than a reappraisal, of a strategy that according to the polls the American public has overwhelmingly rejected.

* The White House did not address, not to mention refute, the argument that the continued presence of American troops is making things worse, rather than better.

And Bush's biggest problem:

* And nothing Bush said is likely to change the fact that he has a big credibility problem with most Americans.

That is, Bush faces the biggest problem faced by liars whose lies have become known. It doesn't matter WHAT he says, no-one (except his kool-ade slurping true believers on the right) is going to believe him.

Until some type of measurable progress is seen in Iraq all his PR will be seen as just a re-wording of the same old lies.

And his failure to even hint at what might be deemed measurable progress eliminates even this possibility.

[As a side note, please feel free to slap anyone who uses the term "artificial timetable" when discussing troop withdrawals. Timetables need not be artificial, and indeed are used constantly and helpfully in focusing one's energies and are used in everday life, as well as, I suspect, by the military.

As I noted in a comment over at The Moderate Voice:

Why must a timetable be necessarily "arbitrary"? Humans operate under deadlines constantly, why not in this case? Because the undertaking is daunting?

When JFK set a timetable for putting a man on the moon, necessarily requiring the use of technologies never imagined, let alone workable, was that somehow less daunting?

Timetables, deadlines, quotas, goals, can have a wonderfully focusing effect on the human psyche. Ask any salesman or journalist in the country (or better, ask his manager or editor) and you'll be told that deadlines work.

My position is that by allowing Iraq's leaders and potential leaders the luxury of knowing that our troops have got their backs, forever if need be, they'll continue their parochial disputes ad infinitum.

It's time we do the right thing and demand that Iraqis step up. A timetable will better enable them to do so.

Several months ago I blogged a version of events that, even as I re-read it, doesn't seem now as far-fetched as it did then.

If you'd like to read it you can do so here.

So there.]

Out with the old, in with the, er, nevermind

Take a look at this map (pdf file) of the 50th congressional district in California.

You might note that it contains towns with names like La Jolla, Fairbanks Ranch and Rancho Santa Fe as well as MCAS (the erstwhile NAS) Miramar.

It was also (until today) the district belonging to Republican Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Duke, as you may have heard, is in a bit of a pickle, having been caught taking $2.4 million in bribes from (mostly) defense contractors. Oops.

So, yet another Rethug has been caught with his hand in the cookie jar, must be a boon for Dems, yes?

Well, in fact, no.

May I refer you again to the above linked map of Duke's former district. If you're not familiar with the San Diego area you should also know that the 50th is one of the wealthiest and whitest congressional districts in San Diego, perhaps in California.

It is also a case in point as to why, without fair redistricting, Dems have virtually no chance of picking up the seat despite the rather egregious wrong-doing of its former Republican occupant.

It is also why I believe Dems who opposed the Gropenfuhrer's redistricting measure, flawed though it was, were doing themselves, the party, the state, and the country a disservice.

As voters grow increasingly unhappy with the level of corruption in government it will not be only GOPers who suffer. Lest they be tainted with the "pox on both your houses" curse, Dems must put forward an actual reform agenda and then behave as if it means something more than a mere campaign promise; a truly new vision well above and beyond politics as usual.

Redistricting, as well as public campaign financing should be integral parts of that vision. Certainly any "reform" that does not address these issues is truly no reform at all.

Dying of shame in Iraq

It occasionally happens that two stories will crop up, unrelated except in the conclusions one may draw from them.

From the LA Times:

WASHINGTON — One hot, dusty day in June, Col. Ted Westhusing was found dead in a trailer at a military base near the Baghdad airport, a single gunshot wound to the head.

The Army would conclude that he committed suicide with his service pistol. At the time, he was the highest-ranking officer to die in Iraq.

The Army closed its case. But the questions surrounding Westhusing's death continue.

Westhusing, 44, was no ordinary officer. He was one of the Army's leading scholars of military ethics, a full professor at West Point who volunteered to serve in Iraq to be able to better teach his students. He had a doctorate in philosophy; his dissertation was an extended meditation on the meaning of honor.

So it was only natural that Westhusing acted when he learned of possible corruption by U.S. contractors in Iraq. A few weeks before he died, Westhusing received an anonymous complaint that a private security company he oversaw had cheated the U.S. government and committed human rights violations. Westhusing confronted the contractor and reported the concerns to superiors, who launched an investigation.

In e-mails to his family, Westhusing seemed especially upset by one conclusion he had reached: that traditional military values such as duty, honor and country had been replaced by profit motives in Iraq, where the U.S. had come to rely heavily on contractors for jobs once done by the military. [Emphasis mine-SK]

One of the more shameful aspects of an occupation that is rife with such, is the continued effort to privatize the war effort. In an effort to further enrich his Halliburton cronies Pres, er "Vice"-President Cheney has seen to it that an increasing number of functions once performed by the uniformed military, (and at substantially lower cost my conservative friends) are now performed by people and companies whose main motive is money, not duty or honor.

And this discrepancy in motivation (putting aside for the moment any tin foil hat type conspiracies) may well be what killed Col. Westhusing:

After a three-month inquiry, investigators declared Westhusing's death a suicide. A test showed gunpowder residue on his hands. A shell casing in the room bore markings indicating it had been fired from his service revolver.

Then there was the note.

Investigators found it lying on Westhusing's bed. The handwriting matched his.

The first part of the four-page letter lashes out at Petraeus and Fil. Both men later told investigators that they had not criticized Westhusing or heard negative comments from him. An Army review undertaken after Westhusing's death was complimentary of the command climate under the two men, a U.S. military official said.

Most of the letter is a wrenching account of a struggle for honor in a strange land.

"I cannot support a msn [mission] that leads to corruption, human rights abuse and liars. I am sullied," it says. "I came to serve honorably and feel dishonored.

"Death before being dishonored any more."

A psychologist reviewed Westhusing's e-mails and interviewed colleagues. She concluded that the anonymous letter had been the "most difficult and probably most painful stressor."

She said that Westhusing had placed too much pressure on himself to succeed and that he was unusually rigid in his thinking. Westhusing struggled with the idea that monetary values could outweigh moral ones in war. This, she said, was a flaw.

"Despite his intelligence, his ability to grasp the idea that profit is an important goal for people working in the private sector was surprisingly limited," wrote Lt. Col. Lisa Breitenbach. "He could not shift his mind-set from the military notion of completing a mission irrespective of cost, nor could he change his belief that doing the right thing because it was the right thing to do should be the sole motivator for businesses." [Emphasis mine-SK

Yes, the poor fool, thinking that in war, things like honor, integrity, duty, discipline and sacrifice are more important than money.

In the second unrelated related story, here's a fine example of people who would never be so naïve.

From Crooks and Liars via Hunter:

"A "trophy" video appearing to show security guards in Baghdad randomly shooting Iraqi civilians has sparked two investigations after it was posted on the internet, the Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

The video has sparked concern that private security companies, which are not subject to any form of regulation either in Britain or in Iraq, could be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent Iraqis."

Well, I guess there's one bright spot. This is just the sort of behavior that is so effectively uniting Iraqis… in their desire to get rid of us.

And though I don't suggest we should follow the Colonel's example and die of shame, should it not yet impel us to somewhat less drastic measures?

Hunter's Diary at Daily Kos.
Crooks and Liars has the video here.

A steal at $1 trillion

Given the US' precarious debt situation, so terrible that taking food from the mouths pf poor children seems the only solution, WaPo editorialist Steven Pearlstein makes thae argument for a better solution, sell Alaska back to the Russians.

I know, it seems a bit extreme, but hr does have some good bottom line arguments that should appeal to the corporate megalords actually running this country:

The deal could be structured as a leveraged buyout with some seller mezzanine financing, to give us some upside if commodity prices continue to climb. And if you figure a price of $1 trillion, the investment banking fees alone should be enough to add several points to U.S. gross domestic product. And the profit we make off Seward's original $7.2 million investment would put even the Carlyle Group to shame.

With Alaska free from the political grip of environmentalists in Washington and Marin County, Alaskans would be able to drill and fish and clear-cut to their heart's content, unlocking value that could never be realized as long as they are in the United States. And politics here will finally be free of the endless fights over Tongass and ANWR, sea lions and caribou.

In terms of cash flow, there's no question that the deal would, to use Wall Street-speak, be immediately accretive. The Tax Foundation calculates that in 2003, Alaska got $1.89 back in federal contracts, subsidies and income support for every dollar its residents and companies pay to the U.S. Treasury. That's the second-best deal in the union, after New Mexico's $1.99.

But even better than the dollars, Alaska's reunion with Russia just makes good old-fashioned horse-sense:

And that's what I like most about the idea of selling Alaska back to the Russians -- the cultural fit, so important in any acquisition. Let's face it: Although it's been American territory for nearly 140 years, Alaska has more in common with post-Soviet Russia, where government remains at the center of the economy and political power is in the hands of a small, shadowy group of oligarchs, who use it to enrich friends and family. It's a milieu in which Alaska's reigning oligarch, Ted Stevens, should feel very much at home.

Here in Washington, Stevens has worked his magic behind closed doors. But occasionally the public gets a chance to connect the dots -- such as when Stevens slipped in an appropriation for the Air Force to overpay for land owned by a longtime supporter, or when he turned a $50,000 investment into a million-dollar payday by investing in a project with a developer who just happened to have benefited from another Air Force construction contract that had Stevens's fingerprints all over it.

Lately, attention has turned to Stevens's son Ben, who was appointed to an open seat in the Alaskan state Senate in 2001 after a truly stellar career as a fisherman and minor Washington lobbyist cashing in on his father's connections. The next year, Ben was reelected without opposition, paving the way for his election this year as Senate president.

Ben is a busy man. Besides his Senate duties, he's managed to earn a million dollars in corporate consulting fees over the past four years and serve as chairman of federally funded Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board, another example of his father's legislative handiwork. Now he is embroiled in a legal battle in which it was revealed that he stands to make more than a million dollars from a special fishing-rights allotment that his father inserted into federal legislation. Dad said he was unaware of his son's business involvement.

Lately, all the attention brought on by his son's activities and the "bridges to nowhere" has generated unflattering coverage for the elder Stevens, prompting outbursts and threats to resign from the Senate. But I'm sure that once Alaska is reunited with the Russian empire and Commissar Stevens has settled into his new office at the Kremlin, those problems will magically disappear.

And once that's settled I can think of a nice fixer-upper along the Rio Grande that Mexico might want to take a look at.

How government REALLY works

Do you recall the "How governmnet works" chapters from your high school civics course? You know, all those lovely charts and diagrams showing the intricacies of our tri-partite government.

I have a suggestion. We could save a lot of money on textbooks by simply having a brief chapter entitled: "How government REALLY works" followed by excerpst from this email exchange between lobbyist Jack Abramoff and Republihack go-between Italia Federici (from the NYT):

"Hi Jack: I hate to bother you with this right now, but I was hoping to ask about a possible contribution for CREA," Ms. Federici wrote on Jan. 9, 2003. "As usual, we budgeted and spent all of our money from last year, on last year, and have started out the new year with practically nada."

Mr. Abramoff, who represented several wealthy Indian casino operators including the Coushattas of Louisiana, replied: "Absolutely. We'll get that moving asap. The Coushattas are coming to DC next Thursday so I'll hit them immediately."

He continued with a request that Ms. Federici contact her friend J. Steven Griles, then a senior official at the Interior Department, for help batting down a contract that had been recently signed by the Louisiana governor and would have helped a rival Indian tribe. "Can you make sure Steve knows about this and puts the kibosh on it?" Mr. Abramoff asked.

Mr. Griles, who was the deputy secretary in the Interior Department, resigned earlier this year. His close relationship with Ms. Federici has been a focal point for investigators, who are assessing a broad range of lucrative Indian casino work performed by Mr. Abramoff. The Interior Department, which includes the Bureau of Indian Affairs, was an important business stop for Mr. Abramoff because of its control over many aspects of Indian governance.

See how simple it is? No boring lectures on checks and balances. No windy discussions of how a bill becomes a law. Nope, government is much simpler.

As long as the checks don't bounce.

More indications of the growth of Spinus Democraticus

The beginning of the trend?

Earlier this month Democrats showed some initial backbone when Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid shut the Senate down in order to secure Republican agreement to investigate (as they had promised) the administration's culpablilty in the misuse/obfuscation of intelligence in the run up to the Iraq war.

As I noted then:

My hope is that, as tempers cool, the Republican leadership will recognize the widom of this lesson. And combined with the certain knowledge that Bush's incredible shrinking poll numbers provide them with zero political leverage, they may find a way to back away from the far right precipice upon which they are currently perched.

And my hope is further, that ... Reid's action today will not be regarded as an anomally, but as the start of the rise of the fighting Democratic party.

Given the failure today of the Republican congress' latest attempt to balance the budget on the backs of the poor, I was right on both counts.

Clearly Democrats are beginning to feel their oats:

The 224-209 vote against the $142.5 billion spending bill disrupted plans by Republican leaders to finish up work on this year's spending bills and cast doubt on whether they would have the votes to pass a major budget-cutting bill also on the day's agenda.

Democrats, unanimous in opposing the legislation, said it included the first cut in education funding in a decade and slashed spending for several health care programs. "It betrays our nation's values and its future," said House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer of Maryland. "It is neither compassionate, conservative nor wise."

And moderate Republicans, seeing their political lives flash before their eyes, tipped the scale:

Twenty-two Republicans voted against the measure, many of them moderates who also are swing votes on the budget-cutting legislation.

Most amazing to me though, is that some Republicans, rather than admit that swindling the poor in order to give further tax breaks to the rich may not be the best political idea, instead blamed the bill's failure on, get this, its lack of pork. I kid you not:

Republicans said they may have lost votes because this year's bill, down $1.5 billion from last year, included no special projects or earmarks for lawmakers. "You take those out and you lose the incentive," said Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., who voted for the bill. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Please note the term "earmark" is DC-speak for the pork barrel projects exemplified by the infamous "bridge to nowhere" so recently dropped from the legislation.

And think for a moment about what Congressman Davis' statement means.

I realize that he's trying to imply that Democrats would've supported this bill had it had contained enough pork.

But since the Dems have shown themselves untippable in their committment to continuing to feed the nation's most vulnerable, the real implication is that the swing votes from his own party could've been bought given the right "incentives".

It's fun when Republicans eat their own.

A note on the WaPo story

One gets the impression the the Republicans are mainly upset that now they'll have to work beyond Thanksgiving;

The defeat upset Republican plans to finish up nearly all the spending bills before leaving for the Thanksgiving recess.

But the real problem is that having failed to cut back spending on programs for the poor, Republicans will have to even further stretch the incredulity of their claims to fiscal sanity if they are going to continue their vaunted Paris Hilton wealth protection plan.

A bridge not so far

Signalling the ever increasing heat being felt by Republican congresscritters, the infamous "Bridge to nowhere" has been dropped from the budget:

The "Bridge to Nowhere," a pork-barrel project that has attracted a lot of unfavorable attention, may not be going anywhere for a while.

The $223 million span linking the small town of Ketchikan to sparsely populated Gravina Island and a second Alaskan bridge project have been stripped of their funding by congressional negotiators as they race to wrap up legislative business.

As the Post notes, dropping this item from the budget will have no monetary effect:

As part of the deal, Alaska will get to keep the $454 million that Congress set aside for the two bridges, and technically the state can use the transportation funds for any project it chooses -- including the bridges.

And what the heck, when faced with a $300+ billion deficit, what's a half billion here or there anyway?

On the other hand, there is one way cutting this bit of federal chicharron could have more than a merely symbolic effect:

The Senate tried unsuccessfully last month to redirect a portion of the Alaska bridge funds to fix a heavily traveled interstate bridge outside New Orleans that was destroyed by Hurricane Katrina. That effort drew furious words and a resignation threat from veteran Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), former chairman of the Appropriations Committee. [Emphasis mine-CK]

If only would get Mr. Stevens to keep his word, now THAT would be accomplishing something.

US military admits using white phosphorous as a weapon in Iraq

So, faced by published accounts which contradicted its earlier denials, the US military has admitted that it uses white phosphorous (WP) as a weapon:

The admission contradicted a statement this week from the new and clearly under-briefed US ambassador in London Robert Holmes Tuttle that US forces "do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons".

The official line to that point had been that WP, or Willie Pete to use its old name from Vietnam, was used only to illuminate the battlefield and to provide smoke for camouflage.

This line however crumbled when bloggers (whose influence must not be under-estimated these days) ferreted out an article published by the US Army's Field Artillery Magazine in its issue of March/April this year.

The article, written by a captain, a first lieutenant and a sergeant, was a review of the attack on Falluja in November 2004 and in particular of the use of indirect fire, mainly mortars.

It makes quite clear that WP was used as a weapon not just as illumination or camouflage.

That story was cited here and s well as generally across the progressive blogosphere last week, and let us permit ourselves a brief pat on the back for forcing the military to fess up.

Now, in typical damage control mode the DoD is parsing its words carefully:

'It's part of our conventional weapons inventory. We use it like we use any other conventional weapon,' said Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman.

Whitman said he had no knowledge of any civilian victims of attacks with white phosphorus.

'We don't target any civilians with any of our weapons, and to suggest US forces were targeting civilians with these weapons would be wrong,' he said. [Emphasis mine-CK]

Oh goody, our military doesn't intentionally target civilians, wow how evolved is that?

Note the misdirection involved in this statement. To my knowledge no-one ever accused our troops of "targeting" civilians, our complaint that when such an insidious chemical used used in a weaponized manner, any civilian bystanders suffer even more horribly than usual.

So the denial fails to actually address the complaint.

Don't you love watching BushCorp™ spin in action?

For those of you keeping score at home here's the timeline:
1) Military flatly denies the use of WP as a weapon.
2) This lie is exposed on the blogoshphere as are photos of children who've been [Warning graphic image] melted by its use.
3) Military issues non-denial admitting the use of weaponized WP, but fails to address the question of incidental civilian deaths and injuries.

So what's next in the DoD spin cycle? I can't be sure sure, but I anticipate the phrase "unavoidable and unfortunate collateral damage" will be involved.

[UPDATE- The BBC has published a handy white phosphorous fact sheet available here.]

WaPo Exposes BushCorp™ Lies

The MSM has been justly villified for failing to hold BushCorp™'s claims up to the light of reality.

But today's Washington Post, in a fine example of objective reporting, gives the lie to Bush's claims that congress made the decision to attack Iraq based on the same set of evidence.

President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.

Neither assertion is wholly accurate.

Ah, understatement.

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley, briefing reporters Thursday, countered "the notion that somehow this administration manipulated the intelligence." He said that "those people who have looked at that issue, some committees on the Hill in Congress, and also the Silberman-Robb Commission, have concluded it did not happen."

But the only committee investigating the matter in Congress, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, has not yet done its inquiry into whether officials mischaracterized intelligence by omitting caveats and dissenting opinions. And Judge Laurence H. Silberman, chairman of Bush's commission on weapons of mass destruction, said in releasing his report on March 31, 2005: "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of our inquiry."

Bush, in Pennsylvania yesterday, was more precise, but he still implied that it had been proved that the administration did not manipulate intelligence, saying that those who suggest the administration "manipulated the intelligence" are "fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments."

In the same speech, Bush asserted that "more than 100 Democrats in the House and the Senate, who had access to the same intelligence, voted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power." Giving a preview of Bush's speech, Hadley had said that "we all looked at the same intelligence."

But Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence, such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also, the National Intelligence Estimate summarizing the intelligence community's views about the threat from Iraq was given to Congress just days before the vote to authorize the use of force in that country.

In addition, there were doubts within the intelligence community not included in the NIE. And even the doubts expressed in the NIE could not be used publicly by members of Congress because the classified information had not been cleared for release. For example, the NIE view that Hussein would not use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or turn them over to terrorists unless backed into a corner was cleared for public use only a day before the Senate vote.[Emphases mine=CK]

There's more and its worth a read.

And though the WaPo draws the line at actually naming BushCorp™'s lie for just that, still its refreshing to see the MSM not just follow Bush's lies whole.

Political Compass

I'm far from convinced that this test has any more relevance than your typical Cosmo quiz, but I find it somehow gratifying to find myself in the company of Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama as a left/libertarian (-5.38; -6.26).

Baby he was born to run

With the shine definitely off of Schwarzenegger's star here in California, much talk now centers on potential Democratic opponents for the 2006 gubernatorial race.

The currently announced candidates, state Treasurer Phil Angelides and state Controller Steve Westly, while decently credentialed have yet to exactly catch fire with the Democratic grass roots, little less the general voting public.

If California's senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein, could be lured away from DC, common wisdom is that she'd be a shoe-in, but that's a big if.

The names generating the most buzz, pro and con, seem to be hollywood vets Warren Beatty and Rob Reiner. Don't get me wrong, both seem to be good men, and Beatty has been especially successful as the anti-Schwarzenegger celeb during the recent initiative campaign. Still, in a state the size and complexity of California, I'm not entirely convinced that replacing one celeb novice governor with another is the wisest course of action.

But enough about California. The most intriguing celebrity pol possibility isn't here in the Golden State, but in our alliterative east coast sister, the Garden State, New Jersey, where the recent election of Democrat John Corzine to the NJ governor's house, leaves his Senate seat up for grabs.

And clearly, if you're looking for a celeb to represent New Jersey, could there possibly be a better candidate than...wait for it...the Boss, Bruce Springsteen:

The Democrats need to hold New Jersey in 2006 to have any chance of regaining control of the Senate in 2007, and without that, there's not much hope for cleaning up the fiasco of the last six years in Washington. But we feel strongly that their only hope against Kean Jr. is to turn to someone from outside the the bland political arena.

New Jersey's new senator should be a person who has demonstrated over a lifetime a commitment to social causes, of not just paying lip service to helping those in need but taking action.

Corzine should chose a person who is fearless about advocating causes that are unpopular but just -- willing to speak out in favor of the Dixie Chicks and free speech on the eve of the Iraq war, and willing to criticize police brutality even when it alienates some longtime supporters.

In January, Corzine will have the option of chosing someone whose compassion for the victims and survivors of 9/11 is unparalleled, yet who realized the insanity of the Iraq war from Day One, and was not afraid to risk his considerable reputation in opposing it.

It's OK if the next senator is a millionaire -- that seems to be some kind of requirement in New Jersey, for some reason -- but he should be a self-made one, someone who can speak to blue-collar voters and can relate to minorities, in spite of his own personal success.

The Democrats need someone with a name even more magical to New Jersey voters than Kean, who would draw thousands of normally disaffected and alienated voters out to the polls. An outsider who would shake up a corrupt and contented New Jersey Democratic Party and shake up folks on Capital Hill, as well.

Jon Corzine needs to appoint Bruce Springsteen to the United States Senate.

Crazy? Not any crazier than a violent action-flick actor from Austria with steroid use and groping allegations who can't even properly pronounce the name of his home state getting elected as its governor (a job with a lot more responsibility than a senator, by the way). Or not any crazier than electing a retired pro wrestler to the statehouse. And not any crazier than another rock star from across the pond coming within an eyelash of the Nobel Peace Prize.

We've already war-gamed it all out, and we just don't see too much downside risk should Sen. Springsteen (don't you love it?) seek a full term a year from now. We do have a difficult time imagining him in a jacket and tie. And it's not a slam dunk -- there would certainly be a sizable minority who would recoil at the idea of sending a rock star to the Senate, but we believe they'd be outnumbered by first-time voters coming out in support of the Boss.

Dirt in his past? Less than most politicians, let alone rock stars. In fact, arguably there's none. In fact, Sprngsteen claims to have not used drugs, and if he did experiment, that would place him in the company of George W. Bush, John Kerry, Al Gore, John Edwards, etc., etc., etc. His big "mistake" in life was realizing he'd married the wrong woman, divorcing amicably, and raising a family, as a devoted dad, with the true love of his life. Not really much of a mistake.

We should note here that this is not a completely novel idea. In 1992, a group of Ross Perot accolytes urged Springsteen to run for the Senate as an outsider. The Boss laughed it off -- but a lot has changed in the last 13 years. Back then, Springsteen was a musical artist wary of being co-opted by any politician.

But in 2004, he was one of handful of folks who -- realizing the threat posed by four more years of Bush to the country he loves -- stepped up to the plate, or, as he might say, tried to make it on a stand. And now, at age 56, with his musical legacy established and his own kids growing up, he might be convinced to stake out a new direction, for the good of the U.S.A. (He'd certainly be set for rope-line music!)

Notice we've kept the cheesy song lyric puns to a minimum here. That's because we're very serious about this -- frankly, we'd support Joe Piscopo if we thought it would take the Senate out of GOP clutches, but we think America would be proud of U.S. Sen. Bruce Springsteen (D-N.J.)

C'mon Bruce, this is our last chance.

Don't let the screen door slam.

And with Springsteen, we'll have a vastly superior store of lyrical material than was ever possible with the Governator.

Now if only Neil Young wasn't Canadian...

{Thanks to Kos for the heads up on this story]

But there is yet hope in this world

A wonderful story of civil rejuvenation at Past Peak.