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.