Hullabaloo

Sunday, December 31, 2006

 
Unhappy New Year

by digby


For someone as old and decrepit as I am, New Year's Eve isn't quite the thrill it used to be. And frankly it was a dud as often as not even when I wasn't old and decrepit. Nowadays I tend to stay home and watch movies (since everything on television is unwatchable on this night for some reason) and I really don't like crowds anymore.

(I might have just the tiniest skosh of champagne in a gorgeous glass. Here's to you, Judy!)

If you have any regrets about not attending some fab event tonight, I recommend watching these classic movies --- which feature two very, very bad New Year's parties.




and this one:




I've had some extremely disappointing New Year's eves in my life but nothing like those.


Happy New Year, everyone!



Update: My commenters (including the director of the fine film Red State) reminds me that The Twilight ZZone marathon is on the Sci-fi channel --- definitely heads and shoulders above the usual New Years Eve fare. If you don't have Sci-fi channel you can watch New Years Rockin' Eve which is kind of like The Twilight Zone only not clever or interesting.


.
digby 12/31/2006 05:00:00 PM |

 
More Civility

by digby


I had read about this nonsense before, but the whole story hadn't emerged. This is dipshit America in a nutshell:

KATY, Texas (AP) -- A man unhappy with an Islamic association's plans to build a mosque next to his property has staged pig races as a protest during afternoon prayers.

Craig Baker, 46, sold merchandise and grilled sausages Friday for about 100 people who showed up in heavy rain. He insisted he wasn't trying to offend anyone with the pigs, which are forbidden from the Muslim diet.

"I am just defending my rights and my property," Baker said. "They totally disrespected me and my family."

Muslims don't hate pigs, they just don't eat them, said engineer Kamel Fotouh, president of the 500-member Katy Islamic Association in this Houston suburb.

"I don't care if he races, roasts or slaughters pigs," said Yousef Allam, a spokesman for the group.

The dispute began when the association asked Baker to remove his cattle from its newly bought land. The association plans to build a mosque, community center, athletic facilities and a school.

Baker agreed to move his cattle but thought the Muslims also wanted him off the land his family has lived on for more than 100 years.

Earlier this month, Baker conceded that the Muslims probably aren't after his land, but he said he had to go through with the pig races because "I would be like a total idiot if I didn't. I'd be the laughingstock now because I've gone too far."

All the same, Baker plans to continue the weekly pig races until interest dwindles.

The association never meant to imply it wanted Baker to move, Allam said.

"If we somehow communicated that to him, then we apologize," he said.

Resident Susan Canavespe said the pig racing wasn't mean-spirited -- "It's just Texas-spirited."

Texas-stupid.

Good thing we're exporting our superior civilization and culture all over the world, huh? I can't imagine why they aren't more grateful.


Update: Speaking of pigs, a reader reminds me of this earlier embarrassment:

"I understand I may have the honor of slicing the pig," Bush said at a news conference earlier in the day punctuated with questions about spreading violence in the Middle East and an intensifying standoff with Iran about nuclear power.

The president's host, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, started a serious ball rolling at this news conference in the 13th-century town hall on the cobblestone square of Stralsund. But Bush seemed more focused on "the feast" promised later.

"Thanks for having me," Bush told the chancellor. "I'm looking forward to that pig tonight."

[...]

"Apart from the pig, Mr. President, what sort of insights have you been able to gain as regards East Germany?" a German reporter asked.

"I haven't seen the pig yet," Bush said, sidestepping the question about insights gained from his two-day visit to this rural seaside region that once rested behind the Iron Curtain.

And when an American reporter asked whether Bush is concerned about the Israeli bombing of the Beirut airport and about Iran's failure to respond to an offer for negotiations, Bush replied with more boar jokes before delving into the substance of the questions.

"I thought you were going to ask about the pig," said the president. "I'll tell you about the pig tomorrow."

.
digby 12/31/2006 10:46:00 AM |

 
Courtesy

by digby


It was interesting listening to Dick Cheney pay tribute to Gerald Ford for his civility yesterday at the memorial service. He said "he answered courtesy with courtesy and discourtesy with courtesy."

As I'm sure you've all noticed, Republicans are talking about civility almost non-stop these days and so is the media. Everyone agrees that now that the Democrats won it's time to bind the nation's wounds once again and move into the future without dwelling on past unpleasantness. The Dems need to learn some of that Ford Administration courtesy:

On Tuesday, Cheney, serving in his role as president of the Senate, appeared in the chamber for a photo session. A chance meeting with Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, became an argument about Cheney's ties to Halliburton Co., an international energy services corporation, and President Bush's judicial nominees. The exchange ended when Cheney offered some crass advice.

"Fuck yourself," said the man who is a heartbeat from the presidency.

Leahy's spokesman, David Carle, yesterday confirmed the brief but fierce exchange. "The vice president seemed to be taking personally the criticism that Senator Leahy and others have leveled against Halliburton's sole-source contracts in Iraq," Carle said.

As it happens, the exchange occurred on the same day the Senate passed legislation described as the "Defense of Decency Act" by 99 to 1.

Cheney's office did not deny that the phrase was uttered. His spokesman, Kevin S. Kellems, would say only that this language is not typical of the vice presidential vocabulary. "Reserving the right to revise and extend my remarks, that doesn't sound like language the vice president would use," Kellems said, "but there was a frank exchange of views."

Gleeful Democrats pointed out that the White House has not always been so forgiving of obscenity. In December, Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kerry was quoted using the same word in describing Bush's Iraq policy as botched. The president's chief of staff reacted with indignation.

"That's beneath John Kerry," Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. said. "I'm very disappointed that he would use that kind of language. I'm hoping that he's apologizing at least to himself, because that's not the John Kerry that I know."

[...]

Tuesday's exchange began when Leahy crossed the aisle at the photo session and joked to Cheney about being on the Republican side, according to Carle. Then Cheney, according to Carle, "lashed into" Leahy for remarks he made Monday criticizing Iraq contracts won without competitive bidding by Halliburton, Cheney's former employer.

[...]

Republicans did their best to defend the vice president. Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), while pointing out that he was unaware of the incident, described Cheney as "very honest" and said: "I don't blame anyone for standing up for his integrity."

As Cheney said of Ford, "there are worse things to be remembered for than your capacity to forgive," which is really moving coming from an honest, courteous, man of integrity like him. Surely we can do no less than Ford did and give a blanket pardon to the Republicans for their truly egregious, illegal behavior once again. Isn't that how it works?


BTW: Did anyone notice that Junior apparently can't bring himself to cut short his vacation to attend these various state funeral ceremonies? He'll roll back into town on Tuesday for the big one. He's tired. He spent three whole hours talking with his advisors about Iraq.


.
digby 12/31/2006 09:57:00 AM |

Saturday, December 30, 2006

 
Saturday Night At The Movies


Crossover Dreams: Borderline Cinema

By Dennis Hartley

The spirit of Sam Peckinpah lives on (sans slo-mo) in The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada. First-time director Tommy Lee Jones casts himself as a contemporary Texas cowboy named Pete who befriends a Mexican “vaquero” (the namesake of the movie’s title). Estrada is an illegal looking for steady work and a brighter future here in the land o’plenty. Jones utilizes flashbacks to illustrate the growing kinship between the two compadres, who bond in the usual “cowboy way”-drinkin’ and whorin’, sleeping under the stars, and reaching a general consensus that A Cowboy’s Life Is The Life For Me (as a great man once sang.) In the key vignette, Estrada confides that, if “something” should ever happen to him, he wishes to be buried in his home town. In half-drunken sentiment, Pete vows to see it through if the unthinkable happens. Guess what happens next?

When Estrada is mysteriously killed, Pete becomes incensed by the indifference of the local authorities, who seem reluctant to investigate. When he learns through the grapevine that his friend was the victim of negligent homicide, thanks to a boneheaded border patrol officer (Barry Pepper), he goes ballistic. He abducts the officer, forces him to dig up the hastily buried Estrada, and informs him that the three amigos are taking a little horseback trip to Mexico (and it ain’t gonna be anything like Weekend at Bernie’s).

Much unpleasantness ensues as the story evolves into a “man on a mission to fulfill an oath” tale…on the surface. Despite the simplistic setup, astute viewers will begin to realize that there is a deeper, mythic subtext; this is one of those films that can really sneak up on you. Although my initial reaction was more visceral than philosophical (I didn’t find any of the characters particularly likeable, it started to feel overlong, and I was repulsed by some of the more graphic scenes) I eventually realized that I had just been taken on an Orphic journey, and it suddenly all made sense. The film gives you hope that, despite the rampant cynicism that abounds in this world, there is something to be said for holding true to a personal code that covets friendship, loyalty and a deep sense of honor.

In today’s climate of post 9/11 paranoia, and self-appointed “minutemen” who “guard” our borders, it’s a damn shame more Americans haven’t seen the 1983 “American Playhouse” drama El Norte, which is only available on Australian PAL DVD (Wha?!). Gregory Nava’s highly effective portrait of two Guatemalan siblings wending their way to the U.S. after their activist father is killed by a government death squad will stay with you long after credits roll. The two leads give naturalistic, completely believable performances as the brother and sister whose desperate optimism never falters, despite fate and circumstance thwarting them at every turn. Claustrophobic viewers be warned: a harrowing scene featuring an encounter with a roving rat colony during an underground border crossing though an abandoned sewer will give you nightmares. And don’t expect a Hollywood ending-this is tough going but thoroughly enlightening. Worth tracking down.

It’s a Lou Dobbs film festival! Try these: Maria Full of Grace, The Border, Lone Star, Touch of Evil, Border Incident.

On the lighter side: Born In East L.A.


Also...

R.I.P. Peter Boyle

According to the perfunctory news obits that aired recently, one might get the impression that the only claims to fame for the late Peter Boyle were his roles in Young Frankenstein, Taxi Driver and on TV’s Everybody Loves Raymond. He may not have been a big marquee name, and may have made a few ill-advised career moves (Where the Buffalo Roam comes to mind) but he was a dependable character actor who always left an indelible impression. Here is some of the Boyle legacy worth revisiting:

Joe-Although the socio-political rhetoric in this 1970 sleeper hasn’t dated so well, this was the starring role that first put Boyle on the map.

The Candidate-Boyle is in top form here as Robert Redford’s savvy political campaign advisor. Boyle delivers a number of wonderfully droll asides with perfect timing.

The Friends of Eddie Coyle (TV only)-A tough, realistic 1973 noir that cries out for a DVD release. Robert Mitchum stars, but Boyle excels as a two-faced, low-rent hit man.

Death and the Compass-This obscure crime thriller (set in a dystopian future) from director Alex Cox is a hit-and-miss affair, but Boyle’s intriguing character fascinates.

The X-Files - The Complete Third Season (Slim Set)-Worth renting just to watch the episode “Clyde Bruckman’s Final Repose”, a fan favorite that spotlights a memorable Boyle performance.

-DH



.
digby 12/30/2006 07:57:00 PM |

 

More Fun With Herblock

by poputonian

We posted this a year ago and I thought anyone who missed it might enjoy the not-so-instant replay. I wrote it in response to some smartass on another blog who claimed that Bush wasn't the first prezninent to claim the right of extra-legal power in order to wiretap the citizens.

You are absolutely right to point out that Bush is not the first president to use the wiretap illegally. At least one past president confronted matters of grave national security by shifting the legal locus of control to his own domain. He understood how secret spy programs were necessary to preserve this great nation of his. He believed that citizens would willfully surrender their liberties to him, and he knew the threat constituted by a hostile media, and he knew what to do about it. He also understood how to make a nation of bedwetters feel more secure. But his theory died when an activist judge ruled against the argument of executive privilege, a ruling which was later upheld by the Supreme Court. By then, what might be called ‘harangue fatigue’ was creeping into the American living room and, frankly, people were sensing that they had reached their limit.

All of which now necessitates an illusory extra-legal theory in regard to what the founders really meant when they designed our system of government. Let’s call it -- 'The Separation of Powers, Except' -- clause to the Constitution. Naturally, it would tip off the enemy if this extra-legal power was stated directly in the Constitution, so what the founders did was they cloaked it in mysterious ambiguity so only a future right-wing ideologue could detect its presence. But make no doubt about it, as a previous Chief Executive had ascertained, a very close reading of the Constitution shows the founders' original intent, and it was as plain as the ski-nose on his face. It really does give the president extra-legal power, in spite of what the courts ruled.

poputonian 12/30/2006 06:36:00 PM |

 
December, 2006

by digby


US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
UK NAME NOT RELEASED YET Basra - Basrah Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (north of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Edward W. Shaffer Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal Christopher Esckelson Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal William C. Koprince Jr. Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
LAT dižkareivis Vitalijs Vasiljevs Diwaniyah (near) - Qadisiyah Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
LAT dižkareivis Gints Bleija Diwaniyah (near) - Qadisiyah Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Douglas L. Tinsley Baghdad (South of) - Babil Non-hostile - vehicle rollover
US Specialist Joseph A. Strong Baghdad (South of) - Babil Non-hostile - vehicle rollover
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Baghdad (northwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal Joshua M. Schmitz Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Sergeant John T. Bubeck Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Captain Hayes Clayton Balad - Salah ad Din Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant 1st Class Dexter E. Wheelous Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Jae S. Moon Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Private Eric R. Wilkus Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. - Baghdad Non-hostile
US Specialist Aaron L. Preston Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Private 1st Class Andrew H. Nelson Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Jason C. Denfrund Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Private Evan A. Bixler Hit - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - indirect fire
US Lance Corporal Stephen L. Morris Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Michael J. Crutchfield Balad (Camp Anaconda) - Salah ad Din Non-hostile
US Specialist John Barta Buhritz - Diyala Hostile - hostile fire - indirect fire
US Specialist Chad J. Vollmer Salman Pak - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Private 1st Class Wilson A. Algrim Salman Pak - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Private Bobby Mejia II Salman Pak - Babil Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Curtis L. Norris Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Elias Elias Baghdad (southwest of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Joshua D. Sheppard Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Lance Corporal Fernando S. Tamayo Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Lance Corporal Ryan J. Burgess Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Lance Corporal Ryan L. Mayhan Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Hospitalman Kyle A. Nolen Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Lance Corporal Myles Cody Sebastien Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Specialist Scott D. Dykman Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Staff Sergeant Jacob G. McMillan Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire, IED
US Specialist Robert J. Volker Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US NAME NOT RELEASED YET Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Specialist Andrew P. Daul Hit - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal Joshua D. Pickard Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Captain Kevin M. Kryst Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire - mortar attack
US Staff Sergeant Brian L. Mintzlaff Taji - Baghdad Non-hostile - vehicle rollover
US Private 1st Class Seth M. Stanton Taji (Died in Balad) - Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Nick J. Palmer Fallujah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - sniper fire
US Private 1st Class Joe L. Baines Taji - Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Staff Sergeant David R. Staats Taji - Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Matthew J. Stanley Taji - Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Staff Sergeant Henry K. Kahalewai Brooke Army Med Center, TX - Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Private 1st Class Paul Balint Jr. Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Staff Sergeant Theodore A. Spatol Thermopolis Non-hostile - illness
US Lance Corporal Luke C. Yepsen Fallujah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Lance Corporal Matthew W. Clark Albu Hayatt - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Major Gloria D. Davis Baghdad Non-hostile
US Sergeant Brent W. Dunkleberger Mosul - Ninawa Hostile - hostile fire - RPG attack
US Lance Corporal Budd M. Cote Khaldiyah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal Matthew V. Dillon Khaldiyah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Clinton J. Miller Khaldiyah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Master Sergeant Brian P. McAnulty Al Anbar Province Non-hostile - helicopter crash
US Staff Sergeant Thomas W. Clemons Diwaniyah (near) - Qadisiyah Non-hostile - illness - heart attack
US Private 1st Class Shawn M. Murphy Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Philip C. Ford Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Brennan C. Gibson Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Nicholas P. Steinbacher Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US 1st Lieutenant Nathan M. Krissoff Al Taqaddum - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Brent E. Beeler Fallujah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire
US Staff Sergeant Henry W. Linck Baghdad (South of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Micah S. Gifford Baghdad (South of) Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Staff Sergeant Kristofer R. Ciraso Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Nicholas R. Gibbs Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Lance Corporal Cody G. Watson Fallujah - Anbar Non-hostile
US Sergeant Yevgeniy Ryndych Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Private 1st Class Travis C. Krege Hawijah - At-Ta'mim Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Yari Mokri Hawijah - At-Ta'mim Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Jason Huffman Hawijah - At-Ta'mim Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Jesse J.J. Castro Hawijah - At-Ta'mim Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Joshua B. Madden Hawijah - At-Ta'mim Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Captain Travis L. Patriquin Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Vincent J. Pomante III Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal Dustin J. Libby Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Major Megan M. McClung Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Jordan W. Hess Brooke Army Med Center, TX - At-Ta'mim Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Marco L. Miller Landstuhl Reg. Med. Ctr. - Salah ad Din Hostile - hostile fire - indirect fire
US Private 1st Class Roger A. Suarez-Gonzalez Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Private 1st Class Albert M. Nelson Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - small arms fire
US Lance Corporal Thomas P. Echols Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire
US Hospitalman Christopher A. Anderson Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire
US Sergeant Jay R. Gauthreaux Ba'qubah (died in Balad) - Diyala Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Nicholas D. Turcotte An Nasiriyah - Dhi Qar Non-hostile - vehicle accident
US Private Ross A. McGinnis Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - grenade
US Specialist Dustin M. Adkins Haditha - Anbar Non-hostile - helicopter crash
US Captain Shawn L. English Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal Joshua C. Sticklen Haditha - Anbar Non-hostile - helicopter crash
US Major Joseph Trane McCloud Haditha - Anbar Non-hostile - helicopter crash
US Captain Kermit O. Evans Haditha - Anbar Non-hostile - helicopter crash
US Private Troy D. Cooper Balad - Salah ad Din Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Kenneth W. Haines Abu Hishma (died in Balad) - Salah ad Din Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Corporal Billy B. Farris Taji - Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Lance Corporal Jesse D. Tillery Al Anbar Province Hostile - hostile fire
US Specialist Corey J. Rystad Fallujah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Specialist Bryan T. McDonough Fallujah - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Sergeant Keith E. Fiscus Taji (near) - Baghdad Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack
US Staff Sergeant Robert L. Love Jr. Ramadi - Anbar Hostile - hostile fire - IED attack

Total 110 | US: 107 | UK: 1 | Other: 2

In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term -- not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home. Joseph Lieberman

Very brave, Joe. Very inspiring. We'll all try to contain our "handwringing, carping and calls for withdrawal" as we view the "infuriating" scenes of "death and destruction" ... and that list of names of our fellow Americans. Instead, we'll all clap our hands and join you in Neverland.



Via Kos.
digby 12/30/2006 04:20:00 PM |

 
Ugh

by digby


In the early days of the war you'll recall that there were a spate of beheadings in Iraq which were videotaped and circulated on the internet. I stupidly watched one of them and wrote:

I watched the video of Berg's beheading and it literally made me sick to my stomach. Do not watch it. It's a barbaric, horrible display of inhumanity. I wish I hadn't seen it. I'll never forget it.

I'm sure the same people who couldn't stop watching that footage --- ostensibly because they were outraged by the atrocity --- are enjoying this footage of Saddam going to his death today. They aren't all that different. There's the same sense of frenetic excitement among the executioners, the same vivid emotion, the same fear in the soon to be executed man's face. I'm hard pressed to say how that kangaroo court and this rushed, chaotic execution represents something so different. Saddam was undoubtedly a guilty man --- but the execution was done with the same symbolic purpose --- and in much the same style --- as those psychos who executed Nick Berg on camera and then ghoulishly passed around the video to make their political point.

This video illuminates what I hate about the death penalty. In my name, whether just or unjust, the state is killing another human being, not in self defense or in the process of a (just) war. It is done with the prisoner completely helpless, tied down and knowing he is about to be killed. Regardless of whether that person deserves to die or not, the state (us) becomes a pre-meditated, cold-blooded murderer when we do it. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

This half-assed, jailhouse execution by what appear to be a bunch of random thugs in leather jackets and black hoods milling around the prisoner, puts the final coda to our pretentions of helping the Iraqis build a civilized society.



.
digby 12/30/2006 10:41:00 AM |

 

What Is A Lynching?

Hear about it from an eighty-six year old with a PhD in Humanities. He was at this scene in Marion, Indiana on August 6, 1930. (NOTE: The audio does not contain graphic detail, but is a very moving testimonial.)

poputonian 12/30/2006 07:41:00 AM |

Friday, December 29, 2006

 
Saving Us From Ourselves

by digby

A reader reminded me that Atrios wrote this other other day and I think it's worth discussing a little bit more:

As Yglesias says, the only alternative to a full and blanket pardon wasn't putting Nixon in chains, though that was a possibility. The important thing was to find out the truth. Our elites repeatedly redefine "getting past it" as "sweeping it under the rug" based on their apparent opinion of themselves as necessary moral and spiritual leaders for the riffraff. If they are revealed to be greatly flawed then without them as a shining beacon to light the way the riffraff will go astray and the country will collapse.

They are our betters and we need them they think, and so their class must be preserved even if the occasional unpleasantness must be swept under the rug.

There is a very recent example of that very thing. On election night 2000 as the CNN crew sat in the studio discussing whether Al Gore was going to retract his concession, what comes out of John King's mouth?

SHAW: Were I Al Gore, I don't think I'd be that terribly much in a hurry to rush out there and make the concession. This has to be one of the most difficult things in this man's life.

KING: Intensely frustrating. You know, historically, when Richard Nixon lost in 1960, he was urged by many people to challenge the vote in Illinois. And he decided in the end not to do it because he said he didn't want to create a constitutional crisis.

Yes, that good man Richard Nixon waa a big enough man to spare the country such an ordeal. Would Al Gore do the same?

The next day:

SCHNEIDER (voice-over): The Gore campaign points to the highly unlikely results in Palm Beach County, Florida, which suggests a high level of voter confusion over the ballot. Florida has already undertaken a recount as required by law when the results are so close. If the Gore campaign undertakes a legal challenge to the results in Florida, that could open the floodgates to legal challenges by the Bush campaign all over the country.

[...]


SCHNEIDER: What we are seeing is a dangerous politicization of the vote-counting process. Each candidate has to ask himself: How much is winning this election really worth? Is it worth creating a constitutional crisis? Is it worth undermining your ability to unite the country?

Soon, we had this:

The Bush administration argued from the beginning that: "Further recounts could unnecessarily delay the elections process, potentially leading to a federal constitutional crisis."

A week later, we had worked our way up to this:

WOODRUFF: Well, it has been a full week since Election Day and there is still no official word on the winner. Coming up, our Jeff Greenfield takes on the question of whether Election 2000 has reached crisis stage.

[...]

JEFF GREENFIELD, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: "Constitutional crisis." It's a tempting phrase to utter. It carries with it its own sense of importance, like "defining moment." But is this a crisis? Could it turn into one? Well, to use another tempting phrase, it depends upon what the meaning of crisis is.

(voice-over): Now here's a real crisis in the making. October, 1973: President Nixon fires Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox in the midst of his investigation into Watergate. The attorney general and his top deputy leave rather than fire Cox. Federal agents seal off the special prosecutor's office. Could a president shut off an inquiry into his own behavior? It didn't happen.

A firestorm of public pressure forced Nixon to name a successor, Leon Jaworski, who demanded of Nixon those famous secret tape recordings. And that could have triggered a real constitutional crisis when a unanimous Supreme Court ordered Nixon to turn over the tapes. Suppose he had refused. One branch of government defying the order of another. But it didn't happen. Nixon turned the tapes over. The smoking gun of a cover-up was disclosed and the president resigned.

But this? Not even close, yet. What you have so far is the messy, inefficient business of vote counts. Instead of troops in the capitol, you've got lawyers in the courts. Instead of mobs in the street, street theater, and folks with a little too much time on their hands.

(on camera): So, could this turn into a crisis? Of course we're not talking about anyone seizing political power or some adversary from abroad sailing up the Potomac, but we could be talking about a transfer of power tainted by charges of foul play.

An angry challenge to the electoral vote when the new Congress convenes in January; a bitter refusal of the losing side to acknowledge the victor's right to govern; a new Congress that, for all the talk of cooperation, is frozen into inaction by a sense of icy bitterness that's grown over the past 20 years.

A crisis? Maybe not. But as an unhappy ending to the end of all of this, that will do.

Oh my God! Finally this:

SIMON: But back to this question about frenzy and orgy. I think really the one phrase that is overused and seriously overused by the media is constitutional crisis.

EDWARDS: Yes.

SIMON: We do not have a constitutional crisis. A constitutional crisis...

KURTZ: We could have one by Tuesday.

SIMON: ... No we won't. A constitutional crisis is that one of these guys, Bush or Gore, says, "I'm not listening to the Supreme Court. I'm showing up on January 20. And everyone who believes in me show up with me."

KURTZ: Right.

SIMON: If Nixon hadn't turned over the tapes, that's a constitutional crisis. Everybody here is following the rule of law. It is the opposite of a crisis.

KURTZ: Well...

EDWARDS: Well, I'd like to disagree a little bit...

KURTZ: ... go ahead, Tamala.

EDWARDS: ... first of all to your point about television and do we have a medium that's fast enough? To pick up Wayne's point about "Pulp Fiction." I'll just take the soundtrack. I think if we had some great music, that would make this better.

But in terms of constitutional crisis, I agree. I think that was overused and was used very quickly. But I do think that we're starting to get to that point. What happens if we have a court sanctioned set of Gore electors and a legislative set of Bush electors? What do we do? That's a crisis.

It became an article of faith that if this "went on too long" the country would fall apart and blood would run in the streets as the rabble completely lost its collective mind and stormed the castle. The wisemen had to END THIS NOW. We just couldn't take a chance on counting all the votes. It was much too dangerous.

The Supreme Court took exactly that tack with one of the most egregious decisions in the nation's history. Judge Gerald Posner even said that they were right to do it because if Gore had won the recount Tom Delay would have refused to acknowledge his electors and we would have had ... a constitutional crisis.

The elites are always protecting us against the rabble, but they never quite say who that rabble is, exactly. Nowadays, it's pretty clear, isn't it? There were Freepers standing outside the vice presidential residence screaming "get out of Cheney's house" throughout the recount. Roger Stone was down there in Florida getting ready to call in the Cuban Community and unleash the dirty tricks squad. The "bourgoeis riot" was just a little taste of what was to come. So, it's pretty clear what the crisis was that the pundits and the political establishment were so keen to save us from --- the crisis that would ensue if the impeaching, undemocratic, rabid Republican thugs were denied their victory. Don't make trouble. Everything will be fine. We know these people. They're the grown-ups.

The political and media establishment does not trust the constitution or the people, it's that simple.

After all was said and done, Jon Stewart said it best:

LARRY KING: OK, what happens if the meddlesome "Miami Herald," say in January brings forth its own vote and then tabulates it and shows you here's what the dimples were, here's what the chads were, and in one of them, Gore won? Would that cause a crisis then?

STEWART: Absolutely a crisis.

KING: And what would happen?

STEWART: The same crisis -- nothing would happen. He'd be the president in the same way that Clinton got impeached, he was still the president. We're not a nation on the precipice of any constitutional disaster other than -- you know what we have? We have a pundit disaster. We're out of pundits. They've been used up now, and they have nothing left to say.

Amen


Oh, one more thing. Let's not forget that there was one Democratic moron who decided to further the GOP and media "crisis" meme in the lamest way possible:

LIEBERMAN: This action by the Florida legislature really threatens the credibility and legitimacy of the ultimate choice of electors in Florida. It threatens to put us into a constitutional crisis, which we are not in now by any stretch of the word.

With candidates like these...



.
digby 12/29/2006 05:14:00 PM |

 
Hang 'Em High

by digby


I'm not going to lose any sleep over Saddam Hussein's death but I can't help but wonder what would have happened if the US had behaved like a world leader and sent him to be tried in the International Criminal Court instead of having the "Iraqi government" (which clearly has no real legal system) stage a show trial and now execute him in the middle of a civil war.

Call me crazy but it just seems to me that would have shown that we care about the rule of law and removed the festering wound of Saddam from the workings of the current government which was bound to exacerbate the sectarian hatreds. Of course, that would have meant that the Iraqi government was a paper tiger and it was very important to the Republicans that they be able to wave their purple fingers in everyone's faces.

But I'm sure Bush will have a very serious press conference in which he will state that "the tyrant has been brought to justice" (mark my words) which is what's important.


And hey, they just got to put out a terror alert. The Baathists are coming! Run for your lives!


.
digby 12/29/2006 02:23:00 PM |

 
Sordid Truth

by digby


During those horrible early days after hurricane Katrina hit, I'm sure you remember the endless stories of looters and thugs and criminal gangs roaming the streets terrorizing the population. The right wing blogs had a lot to say on the subject.

There was one incident in particular that seemed to grab the imagination of the rightwingers. It was reported on all the cable news networks and inspired many blog posts like this one:

Did New Orleans police shoot and kill contractors who were walking across a bridge to inspect and seek to fix the broken levee, or did they kill those who had fired on the contractors? A few hours ago, news services and networks reported that five or six contractors had been shot and killed by the NOPD. Shortly thereafter, news services reported that the NOPD had actually shot “thugs” as a (Fox News host described them) who had fired on the contractors.

I do not know what happened, and am not assuming that the revised story is the true one. This is the first time I have heard of police or National Guard soldiers shooting anyone. For days, I have heard stories of black criminals firing on rescue crews in helicopters and boats, on police, and shooting and bludgeoning National Guard troops. One National Guardette ran away from the armed criminal who had hit her over the head with a pipe, and had shot her comrade. Did the Guardette even have a loaded weapon?

My expectation was that the police or soldiers would shoot a non-violent white or Asian, before they would shoot an ultraviolent black, but I was beaten to the punch by blogger Zach at Our Way of Life, who predicted Friday,

“If anybody gets shot for looting, they will be white or asian. Just remember you heard it here first.”

The current report on the bridge shooting at Fox News is only 14 words long.

“Hurricane relief efforts turn toward the gathering of bodies; police report shooting eight armed men on New Orleans bridge, killing at least five.”

In what sort of hellholes do people try to murder rescue crews, and people trying to fix broken levees? In America’s third world cities, that’s where. In the South Bronx in New York City, twenty years ago, Hispanic thugs used to attack fire engines speeding to put out fires with Molotov cocktails. Of course, it was white men putting their lives on the line to save Hispanics and blacks. Just like in New Orleans these days, apparently.

Considering how the mainstream media are doing their best to suppress the stories from coming out of New Orleans, I wonder if we’ll ever find out anything approaching the whole sordid truth.

It was my opinion at the time that this kind of hysterical, racist talk contributed greatly to the delayed response. (The beasts were taking over!)

I don't know if the "sordid truth" of this incident will ever fully be known either. But a New Orleans grand jury believed there was enough evidence to indict several policemen for murder yesterday:

Four New Orleans police officers have been charged with murder in connection with two fatal shootings in the wake of Hurricane Katrina last year.

Three more officers were charged with attempted murder for the shootings, which also left four people wounded.

The incident on the Danziger Bridge, linking two mainly black, flooded neighbourhoods, came six days after the hurricane left New Orleans in chaos.

Defence lawyers say their clients are innocent of the charges

It was a mess in New Orleans those first few days. I'm sure there was plenty of violence and mayhem. But the media and particularly the fevered right wing media were all too willing to believe even the most ridiculous tales and they spread them with a glee usually reserved for presidential sexual indiscretions. They bear some responsibility for what happened.


And I'm still waiting to hear the whole sordid explanation behind the other infamous Katrina "bridge" story.


Update: NPR did a story recently on the Danziger bridge incident. Perhaps the trial will shed more light on the subject.





.
digby 12/29/2006 02:00:00 PM |

 
Daffy Duck

Mallard Fillmore:



The truly disorienting thing about the bizarro world these people have created is that they actually believe the Republicans tried to "reach out and remain bipartisan" and the Democrats are ruthless operators who go for trhe jugular ( while also being cowardly wimps who can't defend the country.)

I think this might be the best example of their "bipartisan style:"

"Once the minority of House and Senate are comfortable in their minority status, they will have no problem socializing with the Republicans. Any farmer will tell you that certain animals run around and are unpleasant, but when they've been fixed, then they are happy and sedate. They are contented and cheerful. They don't go around peeing on the furniture and such."

.
digby 12/29/2006 01:15:00 PM |

 
Chain Gang

by digby

TBOGG notices that the rightwing is lying by sending out bogus e-mails and pictures. I know it's shocking. Who would have ever thought they would do such a thing?

I have a question, though. The second item he mentions is an e-mail allegedly from a current soldier in Iraq that found its way to The Corner --- only to be revealed to have been circulating for years. I'm just curious. I'm on a lot of email lists; how come I never get anything like this. The right's always got some crap making the rounds --- tales of liberal satan worship or the "historical document" that nobody's ever heard of proving that Thomas Jefferson was an evangelical preacher. You know the kind.

Why is it that liberals don't have anything like this? Even assuming we didn't send around completely unbelievable horseshit that anyone with an 6th grade education would see through, wouldn't it be a good thing to have the capacity to circulate true information? How do they do it?



.
digby 12/29/2006 12:30:00 PM |

 
Who's Your Daddy?

by digby


Here's an interesting little tid-bit. Four of the most popular posts of the year were by Crook and Liars. In fact, the most popular political post of the year was C&L's post of the Stephen Colbert White House Correspondent's dinner. And the second most popular was C&L's post of Keith Olbermann's Rumsfeld commentary.

What a nice little bit of liberal synergy that is --- the blogosphere, the alternative cable media and video blogging. C&L's been ahead of the curve on all this from the beginning.

John Amato --- Blogger of the year?

For more on the current state of the blogosphere, check out David Sifry's most recent Technorati report.



.
digby 12/29/2006 10:58:00 AM |

 

The New Iraq Policy: They're Talking Into "It"

by poputonian

In 1869, Henry Adams said:

For stretches of time, [the President's] mind seemed torpid. [The Secretary of War] and the others would systematically talk their ideas into it, for weeks, not directly, but by discussion among themselves, in his presence. In the end, he would announce the idea as his own, without seeming conscious of the discussion; and would give the orders to carry it out with all the energy that belonged to his nature. They could never measure his character or be sure when he would act. They could never follow a mental process in his thought. They were not sure that he did think.

Yesterday, it was reported:

CRAWFORD, Texas - President Bush worked nearly three hours at his Texas ranch on Thursday to design a new U.S. policy in Iraq, then emerged to say that he and his advisers need more time to craft the plan he'll announce in the new year.

See first entry. Sometimes these things take weeks.



(h/t Quiddity for the AP report.)

poputonian 12/29/2006 08:08:00 AM |

 

Matchmaker Made In Heaven?

by poputonian

In American politics, successfully threading religion through a needle is no easy task, and Barack Obama, in my opinion, missed the eye-hole in his earlier attempts to accomplish that feat. I criticized him back in July for suggesting that young, impressionable minds are unaffected when adult authorities make them stand and perform quasi-religious pledge rituals. I still believe Obama was wrong in what he said.

However, if the Democrats want to field a candidate in 2008, some compromises will have to be made, and based on something I learned yesterday, via Matthew Yglesias, the above might be the area where I'll make mine. I'm not there yet, but peace is certainly a higher priority today than the pledge, and it was important good news yesterday to hear that Samantha Power was working with Barack Obama:

Obama Shapes an Agenda Beyond Iraq War

Key advisers in Mr. Obama's foreign policy orbit include Ms. Rice; a Pulitzer Prize-winning anti-genocide activist, Samantha Power; a national security adviser to Mr. Clinton, Anthony Lake, and Senator Obama's foreign policy staffer, Mark Lippert.

Ms. Rice, who now works at the Brookings Institution, is unabashed about her views on a potential Obama presidency. "I think he'd be excellent," she said.

However, Ms. Power, who took leave from Harvard's Kennedy School last year to work in the senator's office, may be the foreign policy specialist campaigning most publicly on Mr. Obama's behalf. During a speech last month at Northwestern University, she spoke of what a "President Obama" might do and sowed doubts about two of his potential primary opponents, Senator Clinton and the Democratic nominee in 2004, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts.

"Hillary Clinton came out about two-and-a-half, three weeks ago and endorsed the president's position on coercive interrogation techniques, not McCain's position, distinguishing herself from McCain, perhaps with 2008 in mind," Ms. Power said. She also faulted Mr. Kerry for failing, during his debates with Mr. Bush, to mention the torture of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. A columnist for Time magazine, Joe Klein, has reported that Mr. Kerry made the decision based on focus groups his campaign conducted. "The answer came back, ‘It's not a winner politically,'" Ms. Power said.

Recall that Ms. Power was an advocate and force behind the candidacy of Wesley Clark. She was also the counterweight to a character attack made on Clark by former General Hugh Shelton, who just happened to be on John Edwards' payroll at the time. Back in 2003, I wrote the following on that topic:

Shelton's smear of Clark can be juxtaposed with something written about Clark before he entered politics. This view of Clark is given by Samantha Power, the Pulitzer Prize winning author of "A Problem from Hell: America in the Age of Genocide." Power is the executive director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard.

In her book, written before Clark entered politics, Power credited him with saving the lives of 1.3 million Albanians. She gives a more plausible explanation for Clark's removal from Europe than Shelton does, and her opinion of Clark's character and integrity more than outweigh Shelton's.

At Clark's press conference last week upon his return from the Milosevic trial, Power introduced Clark as someone who led an intervention in genocide for the first and only time in US history. Alluding to Washington politics, she said Clark was "willing to own something that was very unfashionable at the time." She notes in her book (again, written before Clark entered politics) that this personal sacrifice caused Clark to suffer his early retirement at the hands of Washington bureaucrats.

The following excerpts from Power’s book give the details. The narrative surrounding the quotes was written by another person commenting on the book. Note especially Power's last comment on Clark's pariah status in Washington:

"General Clark is one of the heroes of Samantha Power's book. She introduces him on the second page of her chapter on Rwanda and describes his distress on learning about the genocide there and not being able to contact anyone in the Pentagon who really knew anything about it and/or about the Hutu and Tutsi. She writes, "He frantically telephoned around the Pentagon for insight into the ethnic dimension of events in Rwanda. Unfortunately, Rwanda had never been of more than marginal concern to Washington's most influential planners" (p. 330) .

He advocated multinational action of some kind to stop the genocide. "Lieutenant General Wesley Clark looked to the White House for leadership. 'The Pentagon is always going to be the last to want to intervene,' he says. 'It is up to the civilians to tell us they want to do something and we'll figure out how to do it.' But with no powerful personalities or high-ranking officials arguing forcefully for meaningful action, midlevel Pentagon officials held sway, vetoing or stalling on hesitant proposals put forward by midlevel State Department and NSC officials" (p. 373).

According to Power, General Clark was already passionate about humanitarian concerns, especially genocide, before his appointment as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe. When genocide began to occur in the Balkans, he was determined to stop it.

She details his efforts in behalf of the Dayton Peace Accords and his brilliant command of NATO forces in Kosovo. Her chapter on Kosovo ends, "The man who probably contributed more than any other individual to Milosvevic's battlefield defeat was General Wesley Clark. The NATO bombing campaign succeeded in removing brutal Serb police units from Kosovo, in ensuring the return on 1.3 million Kosovo Albanians, and in securing for Albanians the right of self-governance."

"Yet in Washington Clark was a pariah. In July 1999 he was curtly informed that he would be replaced as supreme allied commander for Europe. This forced his retirement and ended thirty-four years of distinguished service. Favoring humanitarian intervention had never been a great career move.""

So, I wonder: Who would Samantha Power like to see team up with Obama in '08? Clark and Obama held the same position on Iraq before the invasion was launched, something that could amplify nicely on the campaign trail, and both suggest that concerns for human welfare should be at the core of American foreign policy. Indeed, the world has had enough of the Republican conqueror mentality.

poputonian 12/29/2006 04:30:00 AM |

Thursday, December 28, 2006

 
Clear The TiVO


Tonight at 10:00 PM
On the Sundance Channel

BLOG WARS

In 2004, political bloggers came of age. They propelled Howard Dean from fringe candidate to front-runner. They took on Dan Rather and won. And they charted the course for the "swiftboating" of John Kerry. As the 2006 mid-term elections approached, bloggers were preparing for battle again. Filmmakers James Rogan and Phil Craig's sharp documentary examines how online democratic activism is shaping important elections by focusing on the decisive Connecticut senate race and Ned Lamont's challenge to incumbent Joe Lieberman.

Re-live the glory days of last summer and check out some of your fave bloggers on screen tonight!


.
digby 12/28/2006 05:49:00 PM |

 
Hickory Hillbillies

by digby

Those of us who follow politics from far outside the beltway are often amused at the way the DC estabishment has somehow convinced itself that it is a small town in middle American ca. 1937 and they are all Jimmy Stewarts and Donna Reeds. Those of us blue state heathens who live in big cities with big power centers particularly know how self serving and absurd this is.

Here's a nice piece by Michael Crowley in TNR from a few months ago that they are reprising this week as a best of 2006 that's really entertaining on just that subject:

Surry Hill. So reads a plaque at the end of the long, winding private road that leads to the crown jewel of McLean, Virginia: the 18,000-square-foot mansion that Republican lobbyist Ed Rogers and his wife Edwina call home. To get there from Washington, you drive across the Potomac River and along a parkway that, in the summer, is canopied by lush green trees. Shortly before the guarded entrance to the CIA, you turn off McLean's main road and then down a private lane, passing through brick gate posts adorned with black lanterns and into a grand cul-de-sac. A massive brick Colonial with majestic, white Georgian columns looms above a perfectly manicured lawn. Tall trees surround the house; no other buildings are in view. But the best way to appreciate the grandeur of the estate--originally zoned for nine separate homes and featuring streams, ponds, and a pair of waterfalls--is from above. The Rogerses once hired a helicopter to take aerial photos of the property, which they converted into postcards--a project requiring a paranoid, post-September 11 CIA's grudging approval.

On a recent summer afternoon, Edwina, a petite Alabaman with a demure Southern charm, opened the door to her house. Edwina doesn't know the total number of rooms in Surry Hill, but an elevator services the house's three floors. Upstairs, Edwina's bathroom (one of eight) features a small fireplace by the tub. But she is proudest of her home's dazzling--and eclectic--art collection. "We do a lot of lobbying for foreign governments. I just can't imagine any country we haven't gotten a piece from," she explains. Sashaying from room to room like a docent, she points out the eight-foot steel-plated pantry door from Rajasthan, the light fixtures from Venice, and the four Taiwanese stone statues, each weighing 300 pounds, embedded in her dining room wall. (The floor had to be reinforced with steel to support them.) Her most delicate pieces are housed in their own "art gallery"--a white-walled room where ancient figurines, pottery, and pieces of jewelry lay on cream-colored stands under Plexiglas. "We hired the company that does the Smithsonian's display cases," Edwina explains. One tiny statue, from Peru, is labeled:

Monkey effigy
Moche variant
200-700

Within Republican circles, Surry Hill is an iconic place--a Shangri-la for those who toil on Capitol Hill and along K Street. ("Have you seen Surry Hill?" Republicans are apt to say. "You've got to go.") It's also a testament to the rewards awaiting ambitious conservatives in modern Washington, where unprecedented wealth is being made from the business of politics. Just ask the Rogerses, who have ridden a boom in Washington lobbying during the last decade. Edwina, a former Republican Hill staffer and Bush White House aide, worked at the Washington Group, chaired by former GOP Representative Susan Molinari, whose clients have included Boeing and the government of Bangladesh. Ed, a former aide in the Reagan and first Bush White Houses and a regular on shows like msnbc's "Hardball," co-founded the powerhouse lobbying firm of Barbour Griffith & Rogers in 1991. Last year, the firm--whose clients include Eli Lilly, Verizon, Lorillard Tobacco Company, and the governments of India and Qatar--reported revenue of $19 million. Built from these lobbying riches in 2002, Surry Hill is the psychic center of McLean. And McLean, in turn, has become the psychic center of the Washington Republican establishment.

Rogers is referred to as a "Republican strategist" whenever he appears on television. Let us hear no more from the mainstream media about bloggers making huge money and failing to disclose their ties, ok?

McLean covers just 18 square miles and has a population of 40,000. But it is packed with the people who impeached Bill Clinton, elected George W. Bush, launched the Iraq war, and have now learned to make millions from their association with government. Some are famous--people like Bill Kristol and Colin Powell, Scooter Libby and Newt Gingrich, several current and former Republican senators, and Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. Dick Cheney once owned a McLean townhouse--until he sold it to Bush's 2000 campaign manager, Joe Allbaugh. Less well-known are the countless lobbyists, lawyers, and businessmen whose names rarely turn up in The Washington Post and who like it that way--people like super-lobbyist Ken Duberstein, Ronald Reagan's former chief of staff; Frank Carlucci, former chair of the Carlyle Group, the notorious global private equity firm with close ties to the Bush family; and Dwight Schar, a construction mogul who is currently finance chairman of the Republican National Committee.

[...]

Conventional wisdom has been slow to assimilate this new reality. In the parlance of Beltway-bashing populists, "Georgetown" is the sneering shorthand used to describe Washington's clueless, cosseted elites. That shorthand, however, reveals how little these critics really understand contemporary Washington. Georgetown--and the establishment that resided there--faded from importance long ago. Over the last decade of growing Republican dominance in the capital, a new establishment has risen up to replace it. In a sense, McLean is the new Georgetown. ... "The whole Georgetown liberal inner sanctum, I just don't think that exists anymore," says Sally Quinn. "That whole little social class has just disappeared."

In recent years, a new one has replaced it. Beyond their cultural preference for the suburbs, Washington's cadre of movement conservatives had no interest in joining the Georgetown set--they had come to Washington to defeat it. Certainly, these post-Reagan conservatives--many from the South and the Sunbelt--hailed from a different class. Edwina Rogers, for instance, grew up in the rural Alabama town of Wetumpka. ("Dirt road, no telephone.") Ed is from Birmingham. (They met when she was a University of Alabama law student and he was working for the 1984 Reagan campaign.) As Edwina explained it, "Georgetown is more for the social elite, the intellectual elite. The people in McLean are more from humble backgrounds, state universities, not coming in from Yale or Harvard. It's middle-American nouveau riche."

Indeed, the migration of power from Georgetown to McLean represents the shift in American politics in microcosm. The Northeastern liberal elite drawn to the urbane sophistication of Georgetown has receded. In its place has risen a new conservative striver class--more likely to have grown up in Texas (or, as with the Rogerses, Alabama)--that has set itself up as landed gentry across the Potomac River in McLean.

Or Arkansas, but that was different. Clinton was, evidently, from the wrong side of the hill (billy.)

But it's not merely political power that has accumulated in GOP circles over the last decade-plus. It's also money. The modern Republican brand of corporate conservatism, embodied in the capital by Tom DeLay's K Street Project, cultivated a climate of unprecedented access--and therefore profit--for lobbyists. If the Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham scandals didn't tell you everything you need to know, consider some statistics: Between 2000 and 2005, the number of registered Washington lobbyists doubled to about 35,000--and overall spending on lobbying grew by 30 percent, to $2.1 billion. A well-connected congressional aide can easily win a $300,000 starting salary on K Street. When John Boehner became House majority leader last winter, watchdog groups pointed out that a whopping 14 of his former aides had gone on to K Street lobbying jobs. Meanwhile, where it was once considered tacky for former members of Congress to lobby, they now routinely cash in their access and know-how for seven-figure earnings. In Washington, the spirit of public service has been overtaken by the profit motive.

Much of that profit has followed the maturing conservative establishment into McLean. "You're seeing now what I call the Gingrich Republicans, the revolutionaries--all the staffers are in their early forties now, and they're married; they're moving off Capitol Hill," says one former House GOP aide-turned-lobbyist. "And they're deciding, OK, where am I going to be for the next 20 years. And, three-to-one, people move to McLean." That helps to explain why McLean's median income is among the highest in the country--topping such ritzy enclaves as Greenwich, Highland Park, and Malibu.

[...]

"There's definitely more money in Washington than there was twenty or thirty years ago," agrees Fred Malek, a venture capitalist and Bush family intimate who managed George H.W. Bush's 1992 presidential campaign and co-owned the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush. But Malek, who has lived in McLean since 1969, contends that people like Brzezinski overstate its gilding: "I see a lot of families with kids, greenery. It's a wonderfully close-in suburb that offers an island of tranquility in a sea of turbulence."

Of course, it's natural to have that view when you live, as Malek does, on Crest Lane, among some of McLean's poshest homes. One property here, said to have been rented by Queen Noor of Jordan, listed in 2003 for $11.5 million. A realtor's brochure describes it as "a spectacular estate," which "curves dramatically on the top of a hill. ... Watch the American eagles glide by!" Other Crest Lane residents include governor-turned-lobbyist Frank Keating and Richard Darman, a former Reagan official who is now a senior figure at the Carlyle Group.

Malek's house lies at the end of a long arching driveway that passes lush gardens. On a recent morning, he sat in his living room filled with antique furniture, a gigantic fireplace, and a stunning view of the Potomac churning over rocks below. "It's pretty nice," he said matter-of-factly.

Malek sat and chatted about life in McLean for a while. Then the phone rang. He took the call and returned a few minutes later. "One of my airplane's engines had a problem. That was the mechanic. Fixed."

Last May, not far from Malek's house at the Saudi Arabian ambassador's compound, Prince Turki Al Faisal, the Saudi kingdom's new emissary to the United States, hosted a gala party. The scene, according to the descriptions of those who attended, was straight out of the film Syriana. White drapes and soft lighting lent the compound's pool house a dreamy atmosphere for the gathering of a few hundred of Washington's biggest names in politics and media: Dick Cheney, Colin Powell, George Tenet, Paul Wolfowitz, Bob Woodward, Ted Koppel, John Negroponte, Syrian ambassador to the United States Imad Moustapha, and TV-hollerer John McLaughlin, who pulled up in a silver Porsche. The enormous compound--with a 38-room main house, 12-bedroom staff house, tennis court, and guard house at its front gate--has long been the scene of Washington intrigue. Its last occupant, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan, used to informally host visitors like New York Times reporter Judith Miller and Tenet, who sometimes stopped off for a drink on his way home from CIA headquarters. Faisal's gala didn't run late--"there was no alcohol," complains one attendee (unlike the more hedonistic Bandar, Turki forbids booze). But his obvious purpose of stroking Washington's power elite had been served.

In the new McLean, socializing and lobbying are one and the same. An enormous amount of conservative hobnobbing is organized around fund-raisers or lobbyist-subsidized entertainment. Malek and his wife, Marlene, have hosted fund-raisers for Arnold Schwarzenegger, Olympia Snowe, George Allen, George Pataki, Arlen Specter, and George W. Bush. And events like Turki's, designed to win favor and influence, are conducted on a massive scale. A notice in The Hill for last September's installment of GOP lobbyist Tim Rupli's annual Pig Pickin' party expected around 500 guests, including several senior Capitol Hill staffers, who could enjoy a honky-tonk band and the roasting of three hogs. Alcohol was provided gratis by the DC-based wine and beer wholesalers' associations. Indeed, the closest thing to an intimate Georgetown salon one can find in McLean may be regular dinners--including annual seder meals--hosted by Bush foreign policy aide Elliott Abrams and attended by such fellow neoconservatives as Bill Kristol and Paul Wolfowitz.

[...]

The Georgetown of old was clubby, but it was not highly partisan; its heyday coincided with the era of postwar political consensus. The culture of McLean, by contrast, seems built around a politicized Republican identity. Just ask Terry McAuliffe, one of the few prominent Democrats there. (Not shocking in McAuliffe's case, given that, as a millionaire former business mogul and golf enthusiast, he is perhaps Washington's most culturally Republican Democrat. He also arrived in McLean in 1991, during a less conservative era.) "When we got out here, it was like animals in the zoo--'Guess who's moved into the neighborhood?'" jokes the former Democratic Party chairman. McAuliffe was once stopped at a red light in the middle of town when a stranger got out of his car and berated his politics. During Mark Warner's 2001 gubernatorial campaign, McAuliffe planted a large warner for governor sign on his lawn. "Every couple of nights someone would come out after one or two in the morning and spray-paint all kinds of awful things." Each time, McAuliffe would replace the sign with a fresh one. "This went on no less than fifteen times!"

[...]

Even churchgoing has a political cast in McLean. Worshippers at Trinity United Methodist Church, just off McLean's main drag, listen to sermons from pastor Kathleene Card, wife of former White House Chief of Staff Andy Card. (The church's signage recently advertised a somewhat belated sermon on christianity & world religions: understanding islam.) For evangelicals, there is McLean Bible Church, a $90 million complex that seats 2,400 parishioners. ("The Wal-Mart of churches," one former church employee told the Post in 2004.) McLean Bible is led by the crusading Reverend Lon Solomon, who preaches a particularly doctrinaire and conservative gospel with the aid of elaborate mood lighting, 92 speakers, and the occasional fog machine. Solomon has attracted such prominent Republicans as Kenneth Starr, Dan Coats, Don Nickles, Don Evans, Senator John Thune, Senator Elizabeth Dole, and a clique of young Bush White House staffers. "It's really because of Lon Solomon that I go," the conservative Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe, who sometimes takes notes during Solomon's sermons, told the Post. "He does things that many others don't do. He's not afraid to say things and talk about political issues. He's very pro-life and strong on opposing homosexual [marriage]." In one sermon during the Clinton impeachment, Solomon reportedly issued a thinly veiled Clinton-bashing spiel about how lying to the American people is wrong. That would be little surprise, given that Solomon is close to Ken Starr, to whom he sent encouraging personal notes during the Clinton inquisition. Perhaps because of Solomon's fearless mixing of religion and politics, McLean Bible is a networking hub for young Washington conservatives, and many a GOP power couple has formed there. One McLean lobbyist, a former aide to Senator Phil Gramm named Jay Velasquez, told Roll Call that he met his future wife in the church's lobby when she complimented his cowboy boots.

Isn't that special? "Fearless mixing of religion and politics" is one way of putting it, I guess. (Why are churches exempted from taxation again?)

I think that what may have surprised me the most about this story is that Ed Rogers is married to a woman, but the large sums of money come in a close second. Property in McLean is more valuable that Greenwich or Malibu and there is something terribly wrong with that. These are the good ole boy Republicans who hold fancy "Pig Pickin'parties" and claim to represent Real Americans --- it's one of the greatest con jobs ever perpetrated. I've got no problem with people getting rich -- I've got a lot of problems with people doing it by stealing money from the taxpayers while wearing a cross and condemning others' morality.

This little community of newly minted aristocrats needs to be broken up. This can be accomplished by denying them any more taxpayer funded plunder and putting a few of them under the microscope and possibly in jail. At the very least, they should be exposed for the phonies they are. I suspect that most Americans don't really give a damn about this stuff when things are going well. It's when the economy goes south --- and it will --- that they will lose their patience. Be prepared. This story and others like it will add fuel to the fire.


.
digby 12/28/2006 03:41:00 PM |

 

Rolling Over In My Grave

Guest post by Herbert Block

It is not my intent to startle you by returning from the dead (actually, I'm still dead), but after watching the collective memory lapse of the American media, I am compelled to present excerpts from my book, Herblock Special Report, which was first published in 1974.

First, from the Foreword to the book:

After Nixon left office, the idea was still being promoted that those who believed in letting the law take its course were somehow moved by personal motives. But quite the contrary was true.

It was not Nixon who had been assaulted by government, but the government that had been assaulted by Nixon.

It was not those who believed in the American system of justice who operated on a highly personal basis, but staunch Nixon supporters like Gerald Ford.

When President Ford recommended that Congress give former President Nixon large sums of money -- beyond all that was provided by law -- and when he suddenly granted Nixon total and absolute pardon without even waiting for an indictment or a plea of nolo contendre, it was Ford who placed personal feeling for Nixon above his obligations to the people he was sworn to serve.
...
There is often confusion between fairness and favorableness. In 1974, Nixon supporters called for fairness to the President -- -or in Nixonese, "the presidency."

I've believed in fairness to every President -- and to the 210 million American non-Presidents.

That's what all the fighting was about. It was summed up in the legal titles of the cases brought by the Special Prosecutor before the Supreme Court and printed in the usual court case manner:

United States of America, petitioner,

v.

Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States

That's still what the fighting is all about -- whether anyone who has gained office, however high, is above the people and the laws of the United States.

And from the Afterword:

When Nixon left office, there was a general sigh of relief. And in his first talk as President, Gerald Ford said that "our long national nightmare" was over. But one month later, in the Sunday morning statement that shocked the country, he said he could not "prolong the bad dreams that continue to reopen a chapter that is closed." So he issued a "full, free and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon," and decided that Nixon should have control over access to White House tapes and documents. He thus insured that the nation's bad dreams would be prolonged far into the future.

Gerald Ford, in what columnist Mary McGrory called a Pearl Harbor "sneak attack on the due process and common sense," sought to still conscience forever with a sudden stunning blow, just as Richard Nixon tried to do in his "Saturday Night Massacre." Ford's attempt, like Nixon's failed. But he did enormous damage to the nation.

Ford's secret decision proved, if proof were needed, how shaky the basis for the national self-congratulations of only a few weeks before on how well "the system worked."
...
There was even less reason to feel lucky about the responses of many Americans to these disclosures.

It's frightening that many Americans felt that The President should be supported whatever he did. It is even more frightening that in the face of all the evidence, Congress was reluctant to act until finally a prospective impeachment seemed safer than doing nothing. As noble as were the words and deeds of some House Judiciary Committee members, it seemed incredible that other members could for so long find nothing wrong at all. And a majority could not agree on more than three articles of impeachment to offer the Senate.
...
It was a strange kind of "hanging," in which President Ford shortly afterward asked Congress to appropriate $850,000 for Nixon. Of this, $450,000 was allotted for expenses related to an "orderly transition." The allotment for travel expenses was $40,000 and there was $100,000 for "miscellaneous."

It was a "hanging" that seemed more like a payday at the mill.
...
Those who had done nothing to stop the spreading national infection now sought to bind up the nation's wounds -- with the infection still there. They wanted to avoid national division -- by creating a situation in which the nation might be forever torn on whether this President had really committed serious offenses, or whether any President should be subject to penalties. Here was a formula not for ending a nightmare but for continuing one.
...
It is hardly vindictive to ask why men who betrayed positions of the highest trust should not even be required a guilty plea. It would be hardly a good precedent if those who achieved the highest offices were deemed immune to anything but the possible loss of those highest jobs.
...
Those who were so greatly concerned about the resigned President and Vice President acted as if the high positions and emoluments belonged to the Nixons and the Agnews -- as if they were heroes whose laurels had somehow unfortunately, even unfairly, been snatched from them.

Compassion is due all criminals. There are luckless poor and ignorant who spend much of their lives in jail for minor crimes. But Nixon and Agnew showed a remarkable lack of compassion for such people -- while committing their own crimes because of a greed for money and power which could not be satisfied even with the highest offices in the nation.

Yet there was much talk about the "tragedy" that those who had risen so high should have fallen -- as if we were marking the passing of kings.

The tragedy is not that those who rose so high should fall so low. The tragedy is that those who had so low an appreciation for our government should have risen to such high positions in it.
...
As Americans were relaxing and enjoying their good fortune on coming through the crisis, there was the smashing blow of the new President's 8th-of-September statement.

The Gerald Ford -- who, at the hearings on his confirmation to be Vice President, had said that "the public wouldn't stand for" a possible Nixon pardon, and who only days earlier had said clemency would be reserved while the law went forward -- this Gerald Ford now suddenly issued an irrevocable pardon to his predecessor for all offenses -- known and unknown.

It was as if he regarded offenses against the public as none of the public's business. In judging that Nixon had "suffered enough," he punished still further an already suffering nation.

The New York Times said:

President Ford speaks of compassion. It is tragic that he had no compassion and concern for the Constitution and the Government of law that he has sworn to uphold and defend. He could probably have taken no single act of a non-criminal nature that would have more gravely damaged the credibility of his Government in the eyes of the world and of its own people than this unconscionable act of pardon.

The speech was boggling to Americans who thought credibility had at last been restored to the Oval Office.

Ford said: "I deeply believe in equal justice for all Americans whatever their station or former station" -- and then went on to show that he believed in no such thing.

He talked about the danger of passions being aroused and of opinions polarized -- and proceeded to arouse passions and to polarize people. He spoke of ensuring domestic tranquility -- and created domestic turmoil.

And he said that he, as President, was exercising his power "to firmly shut and seal this book."

And so the idea of some divine right of Presidents went on.

Click on the image below to read the caption. I'm going back to sleep now.

-Herblock

poputonian 12/28/2006 09:28:00 AM |

 
So It Begins

by digby

I missed Edwards' announcement this morning but I'm sure I'll catch it later on today. (Ezra writes about it here.) I did watch the video in the ad at left at was thrilled to see him use the phrase "McCain Doctrine of escalation in Iraq." Yes indeedy.

It appears that Edwards is going to try to bring civic action inspiration and movement building to his campaign which should be quite interesting. Obama has the charismatic, symbolic JFK role wrapped up --- maybe Edwards is looking to be the inspirational, social justice RFK guy in the race. (Hey, if every Republican politician in the country can run as the new Ronald Reagan, we can use our heroes too.)

Stay tuned.


.
digby 12/28/2006 09:00:00 AM |

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

 
Never Made A Mistake

by digby

President Bush on Wednesday remembered former President Gerald Ford as a "man of complete integrity who led our country with common sense and kind instincts" and helped restore faith in the presidency after the Watergate scandal.

Common sense indeed:

Ford Disagreed With Bush About Invading Iraq

By Bob Woodward

Former president Gerald R. Ford said in an embargoed interview in July 2004 that the Iraq war was not justified. "I don't think I would have gone to war," he said a little more than a year after President Bush had launched the invasion advocated and carried out by prominent veterans of Ford's own administration.

In a four-hour conversation at his house in Beaver Creek, Colo., Ford "very strongly" disagreed with the current president's justifications for invading Iraq and said he would have pushed alternatives, such as sanctions, much more vigorously. In the tape-recorded interview, Ford was critical not only of Bush but also of Vice President Cheney -- Ford's White House chief of staff -- and then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who served as Ford's chief of staff and then his Pentagon chief.

Nice of him to keep it to himself. But then protecting crazy Republicans was one of his specialties.

But this is really goood:

Most challenging of all, as Ford recalled, was Henry A. Kissinger, who was both secretary of state and national security adviser and had what Ford said was "the thinnest skin of any public figure I ever knew."

"I think he was a super secretary of state," Ford said, "but Henry in his mind never made a mistake, so whatever policies there were that he implemented, in retrospect he would defend."

Was he ever right about that. Kissinger is, in that respect, exactly like Cheney and Rummy (and the neocons who used to loathe him.) And it's why we find ourselves reliving this Groundhog Day quagmire. Ever since I heard that Henry was lurking around the White House whispering into Junior's ear, it's been clear what was up: mulligan.

.
digby 12/27/2006 07:43:00 PM |

 
The Fall Of St John

by digby


Kos has posted an interesting item by Bob Novak, which, if true, would be good news:

1. The debate inside the Republican Party is whether the mid-term election defeat was solely the result of unhappiness over Iraq or constituted deeper concern with the drift of the GOP, under both presidential and Congressional leadership. Defeated Republicans who put all of the blame on Iraq are infuriated by White House denials of this argument. In any event, we find widespread agreement among Republicans that U.S. troops must be leaving Iraq at the end of 2007 to avoid catastrophe in 2008.

2. The decline in the polls of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), as measured against Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), reflects more than declining Republican popularity nationally in the weeks after the election. It connotes public disenchantment with McCain's aggressive advocacy of a "surge" of up to 30,000 additional U.S. troops to Iraq. Unless the additional troops show immediate benefits, President George W. Bush's determination to put more boots on the ground is feared by Republicans as another political burden to bear.

I'm not sure what could stop Bush at this point if he is convinced by his top military advisors (Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich and Laura Ingraham) that an escalation is just what the doctor ordered. But it's good to know that even Republicans are beginning to see that the McCain-Lieberman escalation plan is just the latest tinker-bell tactic.

Putting more troops over there is a ridiculous idea set forth by the same neoconservative fantasists who got us into this in the first place. And whether Bush does it or not, it's an idea that St John McCain owns as his very own --- he's been urging escalation from the beginning and continues to agitate for it even when it's obvious that it won't work. He has stuck his neck way far out on this.

I just don't see how he backs off now. If those Republicans Novak quotes are right and McCain is suffering in the polls because of his escalation plan then great. It just means that we won't actually send in more troops and McCain will continue to be seen as the slightly insane warmongering weirdo he really is.

Win win.


*Also, the item about Republicans being furious with the White House about being told they are to blame for the election loss because they were not conservative enough is a very entertaining sideshow. Karl Rove treated the congress like a bunch of house boys for the last six years and they followed every twisted order with a smile. It's some serious chutzpah for him to be whispering about how they didn't "perform." Haha.



.
digby 12/27/2006 05:22:00 PM |

 
Pot, Meet The Kettle Of Darkness

by digby


I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying watching Bob Dole drone on about how civility is broken down in Washington since the good old days when he and Jer were on the campaign trail. This is the same Bob Dole who was known as "the Prince of Darkness" back in the day --- the guy who was chosen for the GOP ticket in 1976 to pander to the rabid right and who said in the VP debate, "I figured it up the other day: If we added up the killed and wounded in Democrat wars in this century, it would be about 1.6 million Americans-enough to fill the city of Detroit."

Very civil.

And even though the man almost single handedly popularized that odious term "Democrat party" I had long had a semi-soft spot for the guy simply because he had a good sense of humor at times. Then he came along in 2004 and joined the despicable swift boat scum, dishonestly trashing John Kerry's war record. The man has zero integrity, sorry.

So, I don't want to hear anything from Bob Dole about civility. He's as responsible as any politician in the country for the fact that our politics has turned gutter ugly. He was one of the most effective practitioners of that Republican black art in the modern era.

Shove your civility, Bob. You're an asshole, always have been.


.
digby 12/27/2006 03:02:00 PM |

 
The Preznit

by digby


I went to see Laughing Liberally last summer and had a grand time chortling with the tribe. I was particularly moved by the appearance of George W. Bush, who explained that he believed in God and his son, Jesus H. Christ.

I see now that LL has some videos available featuring the president being interviewed and interviewing various figures, most recently Charlie Rangel, who will join the president as he hosts LAUGHING LIBERALLY: 2006 - A YEAR-IN REVIEW on December 30th in NYC. You can see them all here and they are very inspiring --- as interviews with George W. Bush always are.


Here is another video featuring our president which you will want to watch privately. (It is NOT work or kid safe ---- unless you work in one of those nice video and "equipment" warehouses out in the San Fernando Valley and your kid doesn't mind watching sorta-sexy stuff with a parent --- ewwww.)



Update: Damn, the sexy-ish vid seems to have gone off-line and I can't find it anywhere else. Too bad. It features George Dubya Bush literally screwing "the country." Thanks to gioele in the comments --- here it is, right on Youtube, where it belongs.

Sorry. Instead, here's some sex advice from Democratic activists. It's not bad...



.
digby 12/27/2006 01:30:00 PM |

 
No Law Professor Left Behind

by digby

Scott Lemieux at Lawyers Guns and Money reads the wingnuts so you don't have to and finds that they are just as idiotic as ever:

After pointing out that more Americans have died in the Iraq war than in 9/11, Althouse--quite remarkably at this late date--asks:

A key question -- with an unknowable answer -- is: How many Americans would have died in post-9/11 attacks if we had not chosen the path of fighting back?

Once again, I can't help but blame the press for not making sure that anyone who says such a thing understands that they will be seen as a screaming moron. (Not that it would make much difference in this case.)

Lemieux answers correctly:

Well, the answer is indeed unknowable, but given that Iraq had no substantial connection to Anti-American terrorism and posed no security threat whatsoever to the United States, the overwhelmingly likely answer is "zero." Whatever Iraq was, it wasn't "fighting back" against the Islamic radicals who actually attacked New York.

I can only assume that it is some sort of racism that leads people like Althouse to basically conclude that all arabs are alike (or all "muslims" --- but we know what they're really talking about, don't we?)

Even if you give this the very best face possible, you end up with the Kissingerian war criminal notion that it's both useful and moral to "send a message" that we will "fight back" by invading a non-involved country and killing innocent people.

Either way, it may be the most absurd, illogical reasoning that's ever been given for a war in this country --- it certainly beats Vietnam, the Spanish-American war and the Mexican-American war for sheer absurdity. People actually believed that all America had to do was show its willingness to kill and its enemies would run screaming in fright and agree to never attack us again --- as if it doesn't matter who we killed or why.

It's not all that surprising that a lot of silly people who write on the internet might believe this. The question for historians is going to be how schoolyard logic like this made its way into the highest reaches of the most powerful nation on earth.


.
digby 12/27/2006 09:59:00 AM |

 
Gerald Ford

by digby


The first vote I ever cast was for Jerry Brown for governor. The first vote I ever cast for president was for Gerald Ford. (That was the last time I ever voted for a Republican, btw.)I have become a little bit more coherent since then.

I was not, at the time, a fan of Jimmy Carter; I thought he was sanctimonious. I was 20. (Little could I have imagined what was to come.) And I thought Ford had done the right thing by pardoning Nixon. Yes I really did.

I did not understand the zombie nature of Republicanism and had no way of knowing that unless you drive a metaphorical stake through the heart of GOP crooks and liars, they will be back, refreshed and and ready to screw up the country in almost exactly the same way, within just a few years. In those days, I couldn't imagine that the Republicans would ever elect someone worse than Nixon. I thought we had gone back to "normal" where nice moderate guys like Jerry and Ike would keep the seat warm until the real leaders would return. Live and learn.

The thing I remember most about Ford, though, was his family. They were great --- a bunch of handsome baby boomers frolicking on the lawn, rumored to have smoked pot in the white house, fresh and cool and so much less uptight than Nixon and the girls. As a young person of the same age, it was a powerful image that meant something to me.

And Betty remains my favorite first lady of all time. She was funny and human and normal. I'll never forget watching her hosting a Bolshoi ballet on television when she was obviously under the influence of something or other. I thought to myself, this is a real woman of her time. And of course, she went on to be one of the first famous women to announce that she was fighting breast cancer and founded the Betty Ford clinic not long after. She has done a world of good for the recovery movement.

Ford was an old school GOP moderate, the kind that aren't around anymore. But he bears some responsibility for what came after. After all, his administration spawned the two most twisted leaders of the Bush administration --- Cheney and Rumsfeld. From what I know of Jerry Ford, he wouldn't have been proud of that particular accomplishment. He was not given to megalomania and grandiose schemes.

He bound the nation's wounds for a moment, but in doing so he created an infection that has festered for the last thirty years. His heart was in the right place, I think. But it was a mistake I hope this nation never makes again.

He was a decent man who had a good sense of humor. RIP.


.
digby 12/27/2006 09:01:00 AM |

Tuesday, December 26, 2006

 
Converting The Heathens

by digby


People can say I'm being hysterical all they want, but I honestly feel that a woman's right to choose is about to go the way of the death penalty as a fundamental liberal value. The party is dying to find a reason to throw in the towel. And people like this are helping them do it:

Party strategists and nonpartisan pollsters credit the operative, Mara Vanderslice, and her 2-year-old consulting firm, Common Good Strategies, with helping a handful of Democratic candidates make deep inroads among white evangelical and churchgoing Roman Catholic voters in Kansas, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Exit polls show that Ms. Vanderslice’s candidates did 10 percentage points or so better than Democrats nationally among those voters, who make up about a third of the electorate. As a group, Democrats did little better among those voters than Senator John Kerry’s campaign did in 2004.

[...]

Ms. Vanderslice’s success in 2006 is a sharp rebound from her first campaign, in 2004. She was hired, at age 29, to direct religious outreach for Mr. Kerry in his presidential campaign and was then quickly shoved aside, a casualty of a losing battle to persuade him to speak more openly about his Catholic faith, even if it meant taking on the potentially awkward subject of his support for abortion rights.

The midterm elections were a “proof point” for arguments that Ms. Vanderslice had made two years before, said Mike McCurry, a Democratic consultant and former spokesman for President Bill Clinton who worked with Ms. Vanderslice on the Kerry campaign. For the Democrats, Mr. McCurry said, Ms. Vanderslice and her company “were the only ones taking systematic, methodical steps to build a religious component in the practical campaign work.”

Ah yes, all the usual suspects. Mara Vanderslice, the Jim Wallis acolyte, is a little bit more open about her agenda sometimes, if not in the NY Times:

I also believe that the Democratic Party -- we really need to engage in a more thoughtful debate on the abortion issue in this country. I can't tell you how many times I had conversations with people of deep faith [who] said, "I support you [and] everything you are doing on every other issue except for this one." It is such a painful and divisive issue in this country, and we have, therefore, avoided it, I think, to a large extent. I don't think that does service for us. I believe that we need to work across our differences to find ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies. There are a million and a half abortions every year in this country, and no one can feel that's a good place for us to be. But we need to support the programs that we know reduce the need for abortions. Abortion rates went down to their lowest levels in 25 years under President Clinton; abortion rates went up under President Reagan. We need to work together to support the programs that will help women choose life, and I think we need to be open to a new dialogue on this issue.

We need to support the programs that will help women choose life. She slipped that one right in there, didn't she? It's hardly a ringing endorsement of a woman's right to own her own body. In fact, I don't hear even one tiny acknowledgement in that argument that it's important to defend the right to abortion. All I hear is smooth PR copy.

This kind of slick talk (and it is slick) reminds me of the anti-abortion groups who also claim they are just trying to "open a dialog." Here's Mary Kay Culp, preident of Kansans For Life on NOW a while back:

MARY KAY CULP: Well, he [Samuel Alito] looks like he's a real careful-- a real careful, thoughtful, analytical guy, and I like that. And-- because I'm a little tired of this being portrayed as if he has an agenda, that all of a sudden, poof is going to happen if he gets on the court.

BRANCACCIO: Agenda being getting rid of Roe v. Wade?

MARY KAY CULP: Exactly. I don't think that that's going to happen. And if it does, all it means is that the issue comes back to the states.

BRANCACCIO: But, with all the work that you've been doing in Kansas for all these years, don't you think that if it becomes a State's matter that in Kansas like that (SNAP) you'll get rid of abortion? Huh?

MARY KAY CULP: No. I don't. Unh-uh. I don't think that'll happen in the states. But, what can happen is a real discussion. What can happen are committee hearings in your Senate and your House where witnesses are called-- witnesses who have had abortions-- witnesses on both side of the issue. And, it can be heard — the most frustrating thing about Roe is that it just slammed the door. When you try to get a State law passed even to regulate just a little bit, or partial birth abortion, anything, a legislator will tell you-- "Well, you know-- we can't do that under Roe versus Wade anyway."

[...]

BRANCACCIO: I don't understand how Kansas wouldn't-- ban abortion quit quickly after that. What do you know about the state of that debate in your state...

MARY KAY CULP: It isn't that. It's just that I know how the political system works. Then you can have real discussion. Then every-- both sides are gonna get aired, and if the media's fair about it, both sides are gonna get aired. That-- you know, that's a question. But at least democracy will have a chance to work on it. But, that doesn't necessarily mean anything either way.

In case anyone wonders what Mary Kay really thinks about the political process and the judiciary and the wonderful dialog we're all going to have, check this out:

Hours after the outgoing attorney general of Kansas charged one of the nation's few late-term abortion providers with illegally aborting viable fetuses, a judge dismissed the charges, ruling Friday that the attorney general had overstepped his authority.

Atty. Gen. Phill Kline angrily vowed to get the charges reinstated.

"This is war," said Mary Kay Culp, executive director of the anti-abortion group Kansans for Life.

The flurry of activity marks the latest twist in a long and bitter fight over abortion in Kansas.

That "reasonable" woman who appeared on NOW talking about "dialog" was the staunchest supporter of that creepy nutball Kline, who was uncermoniously booted from his job by the people of Kansas in November. She will say anything, as you can easily see by a simple Google search; her words are well tailored to each different audience. The woman is a political operative.

I believe that Ms Vanderslice is doing much the same thing, although she's working within the Democratic party rather than as an outside activist:

Dr. Welton Gaddy, president of the liberal Interfaith Alliance, said her encouragement of such overt religiosity raised “red flags” about the traditional separation of church and state.

“I don’t want any politician prostituting the sanctity of religion,” Mr. Gaddy said, adding that nonbelievers also “have a right to feel they are represented at the highest levels of government.”

To Ms. Vanderslice, that attitude is her party’s problem. In an interview, she said she told candidates not to use the phrase “separation of church and state,” which does not appear in the Constitution’s clauses forbidding the establishment or protecting the exercise of religion.

“That language says to people that you don’t want there to be a role for religion in our public life,” Ms. Vanderslice said. “But 80 percent of the public is religious, and I think most people are eager for that kind of debate.”

What does she hope to accomplish with a "debate" about the separation of church and state? The only people who are upset by that phrase are the far right. Why should Democrats accomodate such a thing? It's politically idiotic.

“God’s love was so much stronger than any of my doubts,” she said, acknowledging that like some other young evangelicals she still struggles with common evangelical ideas about abortion, homosexuality and the literal reading of Scripture.

[...]

She and Mr. Sapp, 30, a Presbyterian minister’s son and a fellow evangelical with a divinity degree from Duke, set out to test the rejected ideas. They organized workshops in which Democratic candidates practiced delivering short statements about their faith or their moral values. They urged Democrats to meet with even the most staunchly conservative evangelical pastors in their districts.

They persuaded candidates not to avoid controversial subjects like abortion, advising those who supported abortion rights to speak about reducing demand for the procedure.

And they cautioned against the approach of many liberal Christians, which is to argue that Jesus was interested only in social justice and not in sexual morality.

“The Gospel has both in it,” Mr. Sapp said. “You can’t act like caring about abortion and family issues makes you a judgmental fool.”

I really wish the Dems would stop bullshitting themselves for five minutes and deal with reality instead of this public relations and marketing nonsense. These people want the party to become socially conservative. As, apparently, do a whole bunch of other Democrats for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that they hope to peel off some swing voters whom they have been persuaded would be more than willing to vote Democratic if the bitches and the fags would just STFU and get with the program. This nice young woman will show everybody how it's done.

Fine. Let's have that "debate" all these busybodies say they want to have. Let's see some real figures that show that a whole bunch of swing voters are clamoring for more religion in politics and that the nation is hungering for two socially conservative political parties. But before we have it I wish that Democratic candidates would search their consciences and ask themselves if they really want to further empower religious fundamentalists who "struggle with abortion and gay rights and the literal interpretation of the Bible?" And if they reach way down and find that they don't really care about any of that, maybe they could look at the polls and recognize that they are going against the majority in this country, including many of the religious who are not social conservatives and believe in that old fashioned American value: "live and let live."

A good part of this so-called religious awakening is hype. Consider this, from the Barna group which tracks religious opinion and trends:

Major Christian Leaders Are Widely Unknown,
Even Among Christians

In today’s celebrity culture, even the most well-known ministers remain relatively obscure. Perhaps the best example of this phenomenon is Rick Warren. Pastor of a megachurch in southern California and author of the bestselling book, The Purpose Driven Life, he has appeared on countless radio and television programs and on the cover of numerous magazines in the past several years. His book, with sales exceeding 25 million copies, is reportedly the biggest selling non-fiction book in U.S. history (with the exception, ironically, of the Bible). Yet, despite such accomplishments, Mr. Warren remains unknown to most adults in this country. Three of out every four adults (72%) say they have never heard of him, including two out of every three born again Christians (63%). Among those who recognize his name, he has an average favorable-to-unfavorable ratio of 2:1. (In contrast, several other individuals evaluated had ratios of better than 10:1.)

Another example is James Dobson, the Christian psychologist whose radio program regarding family matters reaches the largest audience of any religious personality. Almost six out of every ten adults (57%) said they had never heard of Dr. Dobson; in fact, nearly half of all born again Christians said they did not know who he was. Among those familiar with Dr. Dobson, 27% had a favorable impression and 8% had an unfavorable view. However, among evangelical Christians – the small but well-chronicled segment that is clearly Dr. Dobson’s core constituency – his rating was 69% favorable, 4% unfavorable, and 21% who had never heard of him. (The other 6% did not have an opinion of him.)

Meanwhile:

The survey showed that evangelical Christians have significantly different views about public figures than do other Americans, including non-evangelical born again Christians.

Compared to other people groups, evangelicals were better informed about and awarded higher favorability ratings to all five of the religious leaders tested, as well as to President Bush. When compared to born again Christians who were not evangelical, they held considerably more negative views of Ms. O’Donnell, Mr. Gibson, President Clinton and newscaster Katie Couric. They were also much less familiar with country singer Tim McGraw

The fact that evangelicals seem to be more conservative than everyone else in the country, including all the other Christians, may just mean that they are, you know, conservatives. Since they are also more likely to be southern and hold other views that are hostile to the party that represents the rest of the country, they just don't seem like a good bet for the Democratic party. It's just insane to try to appeal to the people least likely to support you!

The fact is that Americans are comfortable with religion and most feel that their leaders should believe in God. Bible verses and religious language are nice shorthand ways of conveying values and spiritualism. Many of the messages in the Bible are fully in keeping with liberal values and can be called up to support a politician's positions without any controversy. Nobody is saying otherwise. But most people in this country are simply not as engaged in this deep theologically based political conversation as these hustlers would have us believe.

In fact, if the Democrats want to get involved in religion, I would suggest that they start looking at what the right is doing to the mainline and liberal churches in this country. It's as bad as anything that's happened in politics and it's happening under the radar. If people like Ms Vanderslice would really like to help Christians in this country feel like they have a seat at the Democratic table, maybe she should spend a little less time cultivating the right wingers who already hate half the people in the Democratic party and concentrate a little of that energy in helping the liberal Christians who are struggling to survive the onslaught. I'd even help, and I'm not religious at all.

But Vanderslice and her friends aren't actually liberals are they? They are missionaries going into the heart of darkness to convert the heathens.


Update: Frederick Clarkson, Steve Benen and Pastordan have more.

UpdateII: BTD at Talk Left does some interesting numbers crunching.

.
digby 12/26/2006 06:04:00 PM |

 
China White

by digby

Supplies of highly potent Afghan heroin in the United States are growing so fast that the pure white powder is rapidly overtaking lower-quality Mexican heroin, prompting fears of increased addiction and overdoses.

Heroin-related deaths in Los Angeles County soared from 137 in 2002 to 239 in 2005, a jump of nearly 75% in three years, a period when other factors contributing to overdose deaths remained unchanged, experts said. The jump in deaths was especially prevalent among users older than 40, who lack the resilience to recover from an overdose of unexpectedly strong heroin, according to a study by the county's Office of Health Assessment and Epidemiology.

"The rise of heroin from Afghanistan is our biggest rising threat in the fight against narcotics," said Orange County sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino. "We are seeing more seizures and more overdoses."

According to a Drug Enforcement Administration report obtained by The Times, Afghanistan's poppy fields have become the fastest-growing source of heroin in the United States. Its share of the U.S. market doubled from 7% in 2001, the year U.S. forces overthrew the Taliban, to 14% in 2004, the latest year studied. Another DEA report, released in October, said the 14% actually could be significantly higher.

Poppy production in Afghanistan jumped significantly after the 2001 U.S. invasion destabilized an already shaky economy, leading farmers to turn to the opium market to survive.

Not only is more heroin being produced from Afghan poppies coming into the United States, it is also the purest in the world, according to the DEA's National Drug Intelligence Center.

Despite the agency's own reports, a DEA spokesman denied that more heroin was reaching the United States from Afghanistan. "We are NOT seeing a nationwide spike in Afghanistan-based heroin," Garrison K. Courtney wrote in an e-mail to The Times.

He said in an interview that the report that showed the growth of Afghanistan's U.S. market share was one of many sources the agency used to evaluate drug trends. He refused to provide a copy of DEA reports that could provide an explanation.

The agency declined to give The Times the report on the doubling of Afghan heroin into the U.S. A copy was provided by the office of U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control.

[...]

Antonio Maria Costa, executive director of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, warned world health authorities in October of the increase in Afghan heroin.

"This, in turn, is likely to prompt a substantial increase in the number of deaths by overdose, as addicts are not used to injecting doses containing such high concentrations of the drug," he said.

[...]

The Department of Homeland Security also has found evidence of increasing Afghan heroin in this country. The agency reported skyrocketing numbers of seizures of heroin arriving at U.S. airports and seaports from India, not a significant heroin-producing country but a major transshipment point for Afghan drugs.

You know, I hate to be suspicious of such things, but it seems as if every time we get into one of these boondoggle wars, a whole bunch of hard drugs fine their way back to America. I can't say for sure that it's not a coincidence, but you really do have to wonder why it is that when anybody implies that the government might just be involved, they are hounded and discredited.


.
digby 12/26/2006 02:21:00 PM |

 
What Did It?

by digby

Josh Marshall has asked a really fun question over at TPM cafe today: What caused the turnaround from Bush and the GOP being on top of the world and poised to rule for centuries in 2004 to where they sit today in 2006?

Most people cite Schiavo, Katrina and the attempt to gut social security, along with a bunch of other interesting moments in the decline of the house of Bush. (There are so many!)

I think all those things were huge, of course. But I actually think it was something a little more obscure. It happened just before the election in 2004 which was so personality driven (and masterfully produced by the Republicans) that people didn't know quite what to make of it. The implications of this revelation took time for people to absorb --- and when they did, they lost all faith in George W. Bush:

The 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability and, for the most part, Saddam Hussein did not try to rebuild it, according to an extensive report by the chief U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq that contradicts nearly every prewar assertion made by top administration officials about Iraq.

Charles A. Duelfer, whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs, said Hussein's ability to produce nuclear weapons had "progressively decayed" since 1991. Inspectors, he said, found no evidence of "concerted efforts to restart the program."

The findings were similar on biological and chemical weapons. While Hussein had long dreamed of developing an arsenal of biological agents, his stockpiles had been destroyed and research stopped years before the United States led the invasion of Iraq in March 2003. Duelfer said Hussein hoped someday to resume a chemical weapons effort after U.N. sanctions ended, but had no stocks and had not researched making the weapons for a dozen years.

Duelfer's report, delivered yesterday to two congressional committees, represents the government's most definitive accounting of Hussein's weapons programs, the assumed strength of which the Bush administration presented as a central reason for the war. While previous reports have drawn similar conclusions, Duelfer's assessment went beyond them in depth, detail and level of certainty.

"We were almost all wrong" on Iraq, Duelfer told a Senate panel yesterday.

That is one hell of a "mistake" and if it wasn't a mistake it was even worse.

Those of us who followed events closely knew long before this report came out that there were no WMD. And on some level everyone else knew that something had gone wrong. I believe that when it really hit people that Bush had sold the war --- repeatedly and in great detail --- on something that wasn't true, he was toast. It just took a while for it to sink in.



.
digby 12/26/2006 01:08:00 PM |

 
Political Consumers

by digby


Anonymous Liberal pinch hitting over at Glenn Greenwald's place has posted an interesting piece about truth in advertising. He points out that the laws are much more explicit and demanding of honesty in selling consumer goods than it is in politics.

If a company makes a claim which is even slightly misleading, it will quickly find itself up to its eyeballs in litigation, whether in the form of government enforcement actions, lawsuits by competitors, or consumer class actions (often all three). There are also any number of tort and quasi-contractual claims that aggrieved consumers can bring against the individuals and companies who deceived them.

As a result, companies take great care to ensure that their statements are truthful, and consumers can be reasonably confident that advertisers are not lying to them.

The same is not at all true in the realm of politics, where candidates and interest groups can pretty much say whatever they want and voters are generally left to fend for themselves. Lies and misleading claims are commonplace, if not the norm. The perverse result is that most Americans are far better informed (or at least far less misinformed) when they step into the mall than when they step into the voting booth.

Anonymous Liberal points out that all the consumer laws on the books are predicated on studies that show most people don't have the ability to sort through a bunch of competing information and figure out what is true (or what works) and what doesn't. We have found that citizens appreciate some rules and some guidance. He also notes that states tried to inject some truth in advertising laws into the political arena but ran afoul of the first amendment and have pretty much given up the effort, which he agrees is probably the right thing. After all, when it comes to political speech you have to have a very hands-off government policy, for obvious reasons.

But the system is supposed to have a mechanism for dealing with this --- the press. It's protected by the same amendment that protects the politicians and operates on an equal constitutional basis. If jouranlists were doing their job correctly they would function as the political consumer watchdogs and enforcers of truth in advertising.

The thing is, they think they are. They nitpick something ridiculous, like Al Gore's joke that his grandmother sang him a certain lullabye while allowing a huge majority of the country to believe that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11 --- something which those of us who were paying close attention knew was untrue, by virtue of the administration's cleverly misleading statements.

Anonymous Liberal notes:

I remember, for example, that in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, the media made a habit of noting that most Americans supported the invasion. Rarely, however, did anyone mention the fact that nearly 70% of Americans believed that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11 or the fact that the Bush administration had been going out of its way to foster that misperception.

That's exactly right. And it wasn't as if Bush was being particularly subtle about it:

Times have changed in America. Times have changed after September the 11th. It used to be we thought oceans would protect us. A lot of us growing up said, we don't have to really worry about some of the conflicts overseas. We may be involved, we may not be involved, because we're protected, we're isolated from the harsh realities of some of the killings that were taking place on different continents, so we could pick and choose. We don't have any choice in this new war, see. We learned that the enemy has taken the battlefield to our very own country. My most important job is to protect America. My most important job is to do everything we possibly can to protect innocent life from a group of killers.

That's why I've started and stimulated a discussion on Iraq. I wanted the American people to know that there's a new reality which we face, a reality that oceans no longer protect us. The reality that this person in Iraq has killed his own people with weapons of mass destruction, a reality that he has invaded countries. The reality that he has stiffed the United Nations for 11 years. Sixteen different resolutions have been passed calling on this man to disarm. Sixteen times he's ignored world mandates. These are the realities we face and we must deal with it.

Clever and stupid all at the same time. It was clear to those who were paying close attention that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 and that this was cunning rhetoric designed to give exactly the opposite impression. And yet the Bush administration repeatedly made speeches and statements like that above and suffered virtually no blowback in the media. In his press conferences, the white house press corps failed to properly follow up or make it clear that Bush was being clever when he made these connections and instead laughed and fawned as if they were at a movie star's press junket.

It was their job to sort that rhetoric out, right as it happened, no matter how unpleasant it might have been. The failure to correct that misimpression (along with dozens of others) led many millions of Americans to support the invasion of Iraq who otherwise might not have. Had the press done its job, acted as the public's "political consumer" advocate, and put pressure on the administration to explain its claims, the war would likely have happened anyway --- they were determined to do it come hell or high water --- but Bush would not have won re-election. They made it possible for someone who had lied blatantly to the people in some cases, misled them in others and started a war based upon what turned out to be a completely false premise to hang on long enough to win another term before people belatedly realized they had been taken to the cleaners. That's quite an achievement. (I'm still waiting for the ethics panel on that subject to be convened --- I wonder how that's coming?)

Anonymous Liberal says he has some ideas as to how to incentivize honesty in politics and I'll be looking forward to reading it. In the meantime, it's important that we keep the pressure on the press to do the job that democracy requires it to do. They are getting very stroppy about it, but that's too bad. When you screw up on this scale you are going to have to take some heat.


.
digby 12/26/2006 09:46:00 AM |

 

The Reincarnation Of Ulysses S. Grant

by poputonian

Some things just have to be shared.

After posting yesterday from Henry Adams's autobiography, published in 1906, I noticed the following sentence in the 1996 introduction by Edmund Morris:

The fact that we keep hearing Adams in them, and recognizing figures from our own time on every other page of The Education (see the uncanny portrait of President Reagan, alias President Grant, on p. 264) is proof of the universality of true art.

On page 264, Adams is telling about a dinner with journalist Adam Badeau, a follower of Grant. In this, I don't think Reagan is the only modern figure getting nailed, and notice how in the same passage, Adams disproves Darwin's Theory of Evolution. True literary genius. (Remember, too, that Adams is writing in third person.)

Badeau, who had come to Washington for a consulate which was slow to reach him, resorted more or less to whiskey for encouragement, and became irritable, besides being loquacious. He talked much about Grant, and showed a certain artistic feeling for analysis of character, as a true literary critic would naturally do. Loyal to Grant, and still more so to Mrs. Grant, who acted as his patroness, he said nothing, even when far gone, that was offensive about either, but he held that no one except himself and Rawlins understood the General. To him, Grant appeared as an intermittent energy, immensely powerful when awake, but passive and plastic in repose. He said that neither he nor the rest of the staff knew why Grant succeeded; they believed in him because of his success. For stretches of time, his mind seemed torpid. Rawlins and the others would systematically talk their ideas into it, for weeks, not directly, but by discussion among themselves, in his presence. In the end, he would announce the idea as his own, without seeming conscious of the discussion; and would give the orders to carry it out with all the energy that belonged to his nature. They could never measure his character or be sure when he would act. They could never follow a mental process in his thought. They were not sure that he did think.

In all this, Adams took deep interest, for although he was not, like Badeau, waiting for Mrs. Grant's power of suggestion to act on the General's mind in order to germinate in a consulate or a legation, his portrait gallery of great men was becoming large, and it amused him to add an authentic likeness of the greatest general the world had seen since Napoleon. Badeau's analysis was rather delicate; infinitely superior to that of Sam Ward or Charles Nordhoff.

Badeau took Adams to the White House one evening and introduced him to the President and Mrs. Grant. First and last, he saw a dozen Presidents at the White House, and the most famous were by no means the most agreeable, but he found Grant the most curious object of study among them all. About no one did opinions differ so widely. Adams had no opinion, or occasion to make one. A single word with Grant satisfied him that, for his own good, the fewer words he risked, the better. Thus far in life he had met with but one man of the same intellectual or unintellectual type--Garibaldi. Of the two, Garibaldi seemed to him a trifle the more intellectual, but, in both, the intellect counted for nothing; only the energy counted. The type was pre-intellectual, archaic, and would have seemed so even to the cave-dwellers. Adam, according to legend, was such a man.

In time one came to recognize the type in other men, with differences and variations, as normal; men whose energies were the greater, the less they wasted on thought; men who sprang from the soil to power; apt to be distrustful of themselves and of others; shy; jealous; sometimes vindictive; more or less dull in outward appearance; always needing stimulants, but for whom action was the highest stimulant--the instinct of fight. Such men were forces of nature, energies of the prime, like the Pteraspis, but they made short work of scholars. They had commanded thousands of such and saw no more in them than in others. The fact was certain; it crushed argument and intellect at once.

Adams did not feel Grant as a hostile force; like Badeau he saw only an uncertain one. When in action he was superb and safe to follow; only when torpid he was dangerous. To deal with him one must stand near, like Rawlins, and practice more or less sympathetic habits. Simple-minded beyond the experience of Wall Street or State Street, he resorted, like most men of the same intellectual calibre, to commonplaces when at a loss for expression: "Let us have peace!" or, "The best way to treat a bad law is to execute it"; or a score of such reversible sentences generally to be gauged by their sententiousness; but sometimes he made one doubt his good faith; as when he seriously remarked to a particularly bright young woman that Venice would be a fine city if it were drained. In Mark Twain, this suggestion would have taken rank among his best witticisms; in Grant it was a measure of simplicity not singular. Robert E. Lee betrayed the same intellectual commonplace, in a Virginian form, not to the same degree, but quite distinctly enough for one who knew the American. What worried Adams was not the commonplace; it was, as usual, his own education. Grant fretted and irritated him, like the Terebratula, as a defiance of first principles. He had no right to exist. He should have been extinct for ages. The idea that, as society grew older, it grew one-sided, upset evolution, and made of education a fraud. That, two thousand years after Alexander the Great and Julius Caesar, a man like Grant should be called--and should actually and truly be--the highest product of the most advanced evolution, made evolution ludicrous. One must be as commonplace as Grant's own commonplaces to maintain such an absurdity. The progress of evolution from President Washington to President Grant, was alone evidence enough to upset Darwin.

I would say he nailed Reagan, who probably would have been too smart to put Iraq in competition with the general interests of America, but the narrative is too good for Bush, who, when coupled with Reagan, indeed seems to confirm that Darwinism is working in reverse.

UPDATE: For balance, see Barbara O'Brien's excellent post about Grant.

UPDATE II: darrelplant provides a link to Grant's personal memoirs.

UPDATE III: Dr. Attaturk weighs in.

poputonian 12/26/2006 06:28:00 AM |

Monday, December 25, 2006

 
A Secular Progressive Christmas

by digby


I realize that all the cool people think Christmas music is a satanic plot but I am a major fan. I love teh Christmas songs.

So, here's my random ten on this Christmas morning:

J-i-n-g-l-e Bells --- Frank Sinatra
The Christmas Song --- Nat King Cole
Rockin' Around The Christmas Tree --- Brenda Lee
Oh Holy Night --- The Morman Tabernacle Choir
Christmas (Baby Please Come Home) --- Darlene Love
Merry Christmas Baby --- Elvis
A Chipmunk Christmas --- Alvin and the Chipmunks (those of you of a certain age will understand)
Rudy The Rednose Reindeer --- Dean Martin
Little Drummer Boy --- Bing Crosby and David Bowie


And if we are lucky, we'll all be singing this one some Christmas in the near future because it will be true:

Happy Christmas (War Is Over) --- John Lennon:




Here's wishing for Peace on Earth and all that other good stuff. Merry Christmas everybody.


.
digby 12/25/2006 09:02:00 AM |

 

Virgin Legacies

by poputonian

Upon visiting the awe-inspiring Chartres Cathedral in France, Henry Adams, intellectual and sage descendant of two presidents, concluded that the Virgin herself was responsible for its creation:

At last we are face to face with the crowning glory of Chartres. Other churches have glass -- quantities of it, and very fine -- but we have been trying to catch a glimpse of the glory which stands behind the glass of Chartres, and gives it quality and feeling of its own. For once the architect is useless and his explanations are pitiable; the painter helps still less; and the decorator, unless he works in glass, is the poorest guide of all, while, if he works in glass, he is sure to lead wrong; and all of them may toil until Pierre Mauclerc's stone Christ comes to life, and condemns them among the unpardonable sinners on the southern portal, but neither they nor any other artist will ever create another Chartres. You had better stop here, once for all, unless you are willing to feel that Chartres was made what it is, not by artist, but by the Virgin.

If this imperial presence is stamped on the architecture and the sculpture with an energy not to be mistaken, it radiates through the glass with a light and colour that actually blind the true servant of Mary. One becomes, sometimes, a little incoherent in talking about it; one is ashamed to be as extravagant as one wants to be; one has no business to labour painfully to explain and prove to one's self what is as clear as the sun in the sky; one loses temper in reasoning about what can only be felt, and what ought to be felt instantly, as it was in the twelfth century, even by the truie qui file and the ane qui vielle. Any one should feel it that wishes; any one who does not wish to feel it can let it alone. Still, it may be that not one tourist in a hundred -- perhaps not one in a thousand of the English-speaking race -- does feel it, or can feel it even when explained to him, for we have lost many senses.

Edmund Morris, writing the modern-day introduction to Adams' 1906 autobiography, The Education of Henry Adams, which itself was written uniquely in third-person, tells us that Adams was "too rationalistic to be religious," but adds that he "nevertheless believed in an ordered universe." Relating Darwin and religion, Morris further stated that Adams' reaction to Darwinism "was somewhat blunted by an agnostic unsentimentality." So where, then, did Adams get his expressive awe of the Virgin Mary? Perhaps the answer is revealed in his third-person autobiography, where he talks about the Virgin as a force, or as a symbol of power:

... he knew that only since 1895 had he begun to feel the Virgin or Venus as force, and not everywhere even so. At Chartres -- perhaps at Lourdes -- possibly at Cnidos if one could still find there the divinely naked Aphrodite of Praxiteles -- but otherwise one must look for force to the goddesses of Indian mythology. The idea died out long ago in the German and English stock. St. Gaudens at Amiens was hardly less sensitive to the force of the female energy than Matthew Arnold at the Grande Chartreuse. Neither of them felt goddesses as power -- only as reflected emotion, human expression, beauty, purity, taste, scarcely even as sympathy. They felt a railway train as power, yet they, and all other artists, constantly complained that the power embodied in a railway train could never be embodied in art. All the steam in the world could not, like the Virgin, build Chartres.

Adams then went on to set mortal men apart from the force of the Virgin, and, perhaps too, from women:

Yet in mechanics, whatever the mechanicians might think, both energies acted as interchangeable force on man, and by action on man all known force may be measured. Indeed, few men of science measured force in any other way. After once admitting that a straight line was the shortest distance between two points, no serious mathematician cared to deny anything that suited his convenience, and rejected no symbol, unproved or unproveable, that helped him to accomplish work. The symbol was force, as a compass-needle or a triangle was force, as the mechanist might prove by losing it, and nothing could be gained by ignoring their value. Symbol or energy, the Virgin had acted as the greatest force the Western world ever felt, and had drawn man's activities to herself more strongly than any other power, natural or supernatural, had ever done; the historian's business was to follow the track of the energy; to find where it came from and where it went to; its complex source and shifting channels; its values, equivalents, conversions. It could scarcely be more complex than radium; it could hardly be deflected, diverted, polarized, absorbed more perplexingly than other radiant matter. Adams knew nothng about any of them, but as a mathematical problem of influence on human progress, though all were occult, all reacted on his mind, and he rather inclined to think the Virgin easiest to handle.

Nearing the end of the introduction, Morris writes about Adams:

It is his confidence that Chaos can be controlled, once its hidden energies are understood and embraced, which speaks to us even now, even more than his exquisite prose style. We, no less than the disillusioned generation that made The Education a phenomenal bestseller in the years immediately after World War I, are confronted by a future that seems to reject old certainties. Just as Adams' first readers had to adjust to a fairly complete transformation of the world's social and political order, so must his latest confront such imponderables as, say, the decline of print culture in the West, and the unbalancing of the gender equilibrium in Eastern abortion clinics.

One may take such new issues and leaf through The Education in search of applicable wisdom. Almost at once the book falls open at:

Of all movements of inertia, maternity and reproduction are the most typical, and women’s property of moving in a constant line forever is ultimate, uniting history in its only unbroken and unbreakable sequence. Whatever else stops, the woman must go on reproducing, as she did in the Siluria of Pteraspis; sex is a vital condition, and race only a local one. If the laws of inertia are to be sought anywhere with certainty, it is in the feminine mind.

By his shock use of the word mind, instead of body, Adams at once transmits a message of comfort. Unable as he naturally was to imagine social engineering by sonogram, his faith in das ewig Weibliche, and his "Dynamic Theory of History" (which perfectly fits today's explosion of cybercommunications), persuade us that sooner or later, oppressed women in China and India will get wired, and wise to, the manipulation of their wombs by men.

Now I understand everything.

May the force (de femme) be with you.

Merry Christmas.

UPDATE: For clarity, I should be more explicit in saying that I believe Adams was fascinated by the power of the female, or das ewig Weibliche. I do not think that Adams was endorsing religion. I believe he was laying out a connection between the female role in the continuity of history, the symbolic power of the Virgin, and the role of men, who historically have always had to be busy 'doing things' -- like building churches and burning bridges. As people here have probably gathered, I am not a religious person and what Adams penned above helps convince me of the practical manifestations of religion, both good and bad.

poputonian 12/25/2006 05:40:00 AM |

Sunday, December 24, 2006

 
Celebrating In Court

by digby


Like Christy I regret not being around to celebrate Festivus with my readers yesterday, but it seems like it comes earlier every year, doesn't it?

You know an American holiday is taking off when people start fighting over trademarks and patents:

A FESTIVUS MESS-TIVUS

A pole war is threatening to ruin Festivus.
Three manufacturers of the holiday decoration invented in a 1997 "Seinfeld" episode are in a battle over who deserves the right to trademark the name "Festivus pole."

On Dec. 26, 2005, Mountainmen Enterprises of Belle Vernon, Pa., applied to trademark the term for its metal holiday ornaments.

Nine months later, the Wagner Companies of Milwaukee, Wis., filed a counterclaim, saying it had been selling Festivus poles well before then.

Enter TheFestivusPole.com of Arlington, Va., which says its online business pre-dates Wagner's.

Three weeks ago, after Mountainmen failed to respond, the Patent and Trademark Office ruled for Wagner, though Mountainmen has until Jan. 6 to appeal.

This is actually in keeping with one of the most important Festivus rituals --- the airing of the grievances.



Happy belated Festivus everyone.


.
digby 12/24/2006 01:10:00 PM |

 
Snooker List

by digby

Eleanor Clift put together a column in which she outlines a few of the Bush administration lies for the year. (I'm sure we could come up with a list that goes on for days with that one.) But what is more interesting to me is the following:

The administration had the media snookered much of the time. Stories that were underreported largely because they ran counter to administration spin include:

• A study that shows the death toll among Iraqis has reached as high as 655,000. Extensively researched by teams of doctors commissioned by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Md., the study—and the controversy over its sampling methodology—was given scant attention by the media because it was so far out of line from the administration’s projection of perhaps 50,000 civilian deaths. That’s still a horrendous death toll of innocents in a country the size of Iraq. Now, 100 bodies routinely turn up every day in Baghdad’s morgues, the victims of sectarian violence, and the report, published in October in The Lancet medical journal, seems to be closer to the truth than anything the Bush administration has acknowledged.

• Private contractors in Iraq. There are 100,000 government contractors in Iraq, a number that rivals the 140,000 U.S. soldiers in the country. It’s dangerous work; some 650 contractors have died there. They do a lot of the jobs the military used to do, everything from providing security and interrogating prisoners to cooking meals for the soldiers. They work for military contractors like KBR and DynCorp International, which are helping train the Iraqi police force. This is the largest contingent of civilians ever operating in a battlefield environment, and there’s been no congressional oversight or accountability. That should change with the Democrats taking over the investigative committees on Capitol Hill. The abuses may be just waiting to be uncovered.

• America’s secret torture prisons, whose existence Bush acknowledged as part of his tough-guy campaigning this fall. Set up in the aftermath of 9/11 to hold suspected terrorists indefinitely, the legality, morality and practicality of these so-called “black sites” have come under scrutiny. After a brief flurry about the use of torture tactics like “water boarding,” where a prisoner is made to feel he’s drowning, the story of these CIA-operated overseas prisons faded. Yet they contributed to the central tragedy of the Bush administration, the collapse of America’s standing around the world.

I would add the anti-science campaign being waged by the Republicans and the return of the Taliban to that list.

Anyone care to add more? (I'll print the entire list in a couple of days, just for fun.)

Update: Theresa at Making Light made a list earlier of underreported stories. Some of them run counter to administration spin and some are just plain underreported. I hadn't heard of a couple of them and I read a lot of papers.


.
digby 12/24/2006 12:46:00 PM |

 
And Then What Happened...?

by digby

Via Steve Gilliard I see that some conservative evangelicals have decided to deal with all the closeted homosexuality in their clergy by starting a homo-rehab program:

Recent gay-sex scandals involving evangelical pastors have prompted much soul-searching among conservative Christian leaders.

No one has proposed rethinking the theology that homosexuality is a sin. Instead, there's a growing consensus that the church must do a better job of helping pastors resist all immoral desires, such as a lust for pornography, an addiction to drugs or a lifelong same-sex attraction.

Seminary professors, Christian counselors and veteran clergy say the best way to help pastors fight temptation is to get them talking — even about their most shameful secrets. They don't want a sordid tell-all from the pulpit each Sunday. But they would like pastors to bare their weaknesses and admit their lapses before a small group of "accountability partners" — friends committed to listen with empathy, then rebuke or advise as needed.

J. Edgar Hoover liked to keep tabs on all teh gays too. And then he owned them.

The thing I don't get about this is that these people are absolutely sure that homosexuality is a choice. But evangelical pastors are obviously not "choosing" to have a hidden gay life. They believe it's sinful and they hate themselves for it. They, of all people, would not "choose" such a thing. It must be such a strong, fundamental question of identity that they are unable to resist it. (Either that or they just fast-talking religion hustlers who are completely full of shit. There are probably some of both.)

But there is actually some good news in this, I think. Under these peoples' belief system, being gay is one of the worst sins around. Yet they are carving out a moral exception for gay preachers -- the men who are supposed to set the standards and lead the people. Would they allow murderers to keep preaching? Thieves?

It seems to me that they are slowly but surely coming to realize that homosexuality knows no bounds, even among evangelical preachers, Catholic priests and other religious leaders who can't practice what they preach. If so, it's a good step in the right direction, no matter how small. Maybe if some of these people actually have to hear the stories of torment among their own small, elite group they'll get some empathy --- something Jesus Christ thought very highly of, if I'm not mistaken.



.
digby 12/24/2006 12:19:00 PM |

 
We Won't Forget

by digby


The problem with letting bygones be bygones for war crimes is that some people who suffered might just rise to prominence and be unwilling to let things go:

Gen. Augusto Pinochet died this month without ever being held legally accountable for human rights abuses that occurred during his dictatorship. But his subordinates are now facing a new threat: President Michelle Bachelet is pushing to invalidate an amnesty law that for nearly 30 years has exempted them from prosecution on murder and torture charges.

General Pinochet originally decreed the amnesty in April 1978, four and a half years after he seized power in the coup that overthrew an elected president, Salvador Allende. According to official reports of government commissions, his dictatorship was responsible for the deaths of at least 3,200 people, the bulk of which occurred before the amnesty edict, and the torture of 28,000 more.

“This government, like other democratic governments before it, maintains that the amnesty was an illegitimate decision in its origins and content, form and foundation,” Ms. Bachelet’s chief of staff, Paulina Veloso, said in an interview at the presidential palace here. “Our conviction is that it should never have been applied at all, and certainly should never be used again.”

The modern free-market Chile that the wingnuts claim is Pinochet's finest accomplishment is not quite ready to admit that all the killing, disappearing and torturing was worth it. After all, President Michele Bachelet was one of the people they tortured.

Accountability is a necessity for democracy to work. There are many ways to do it, from war crimes trials to truth and reconciliation commissions. But it must be done and it must be done publicly. If you sweep it under the rug it will fester and ultimately make a society very ill. Fair, open inquiry under the rule of law is required for a free society to move forward after a period of authoritarian, illegal rule.

There are lessons to be learned here.



.
digby 12/24/2006 11:28:00 AM |

 
Pastimes

by digby


I have to agree with Frank Rich that the Time Magazine person of the year was a little bit absurd --- but then so is his column about it:

This editorial pratfall struck me, once a proud Time staff member, as a sign that my journalistic alma mater might go the way of the old Life... Let’s hope publishing history doesn’t repeat itself. So in Time’s defense, let me say that the more I reflected on its 2006 Person of the Year — or perhaps the more that Mylar cover reflected back at me — the more I realized that the magazine wasn’t as out of touch as it first seemed. Time made the right choice, albeit for the wrong reasons.

As our country sinks deeper into a quagmire — and even a conclusive Election Day repudiation of the war proves powerless to stop it — we the people, and that includes, yes, you, will seek out any escape hatch we can find. In the Iraq era, the dropout nostrums of choice are not the drugs and drug culture of Vietnam but the equally masturbatory and narcissistic (if less psychedelic) pastimes of the Internet. Why not spend hour upon hour passionately venting in the blogosphere, as Time suggests, about our “state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street”? Or an afternoon surfing from video to video on YouTube, where short-attention-span fluff is infinite? It’s more fun than the nightly news, which, as Laura Bush reminded us this month, has been criminally lax in unearthing all those “good things that are happening” in Baghdad.

So, just like George Will, Rich sees the blogosphere as masturbatory and narcissistic fluff ---- why, it's more fun than the nightly news! Apparently Rich and Will want us to believe that they spend their days and nights reading policy papers and holding seminars on the important issues of the day while the rest of us passionately vent about "our state of mind or the state of the nation or the steak-frites at the new bistro down the street" --- which sounds suspiciously like a cocktail party in Manhattan or Georgetown.

I won't go into why the political blogosphere is both entertaining and influential because if you read blogs you already know why. If it is escapism, it's a form that creates community and makes people better informed and more actively involved in citizenship --- so I'm hard pressed to see why this should be considered masturbatory and narcissistic.

Whatever. The blogosphere is something new and like most new things, much of the staid establishment fails to accept it until it's already out of fashion. I've watched this phenonmenon my whole life. (I remember when the politicians started growing their sideburns in the 70's. Oy.)


But as much as I've liked Rich over the years, I have to agree with Big Tent Democrat that when he gets a little too superior toward hoi polloi he needs to be reminded of this, by Bob Sommerby:

Why has a “liberal” like Rich been so tough on Gore through the years? Why did he invent Love Story in 1997? Throughout the course of Campaign 2000, why did he keep pretending that Bush and Gore were a perfectly-matched pair of bumblers? When Gore spoke out on Iraq in 2002, why did Rich attack him again (inventing his facts as he went)? And in his new column, just two weeks ago, why did he nit-pick those ludicrous complaints about Gore? For example, why did he pretend—in that pathetic example—that Gore “waffled” on creationism in 1999? For the most part, readers have no way to evaluate such claims. Why does Rich just keep making them up?

Rich was one of the pathologically unserious who treated the 2000 election as if it were a seventh grade girls slumber party. Considering the consequences, a little humility is in order.



.
digby 12/24/2006 09:24:00 AM |

Saturday, December 23, 2006

 
Saturday Night Before Christmas At The Movies

Ye Olde Dysfunctional Family Xmas

by Dennis Hartley

Ho Ho Ho! I thought I’d dig out an old holiday chestnut for your Christmas creel this week. The Lion in Winter is a brainy, brash medieval talkfest that may disappoint the Society for Creative Anachronism types for its paucity of swordplay, but delight those who prefer a bit of spirited wordplay. A boisterous Peter O’Toole plays England’s Henry II like a true Christmas ham, and along with his acid-tongued Queen Eleanor (Katherine Hepburn, in an Oscar-winning performance) proceeds to (verbally) carve the family up for holiday dinner. O’Toole and Hepburn are crackling good in all their scenes together, gleefully tearing into each other like Edward Albee’s George and Martha transplanted into a drafty 12th century English castle. Henry, who has been holding his queen under house arrest for some time, has precipitated a family reunion by letting Eleanor “out” for a Christmas furlough. The “boys” are home for the holidays too, and they are not exactly “My Three Sons”! Led by the devious Richard the Lionhearted, (Anthony Hopkins) the trio of siblings argue, intrigue and swap inner-family alliances several times before the yams are even done (politics have not really changed much in 900 years). Look for a very young Timothy Dalton as Phillip of France, who has some nasty tricks up his Christmas stocking as well. Screenwriter James Goldman (“Robin And Marian”) delivers a script chock-a-block with many a well-turned phrase and dead-aimed barb. It is not too difficult to see how Hepburn walked away with her 1968 statue, spouting scenery-chewing one liners like “Well now, what SHALL we hang first-the holly…or each other?” Fill your grail with nog and let the yuletide backstabbing begin!

I enjoy re-screening It’s A Wonderful Life, Miracle on 34th Street or Christmas Story as much as the next guy, but if you feel you have finally reached your lifetime quota… here’s some less traditional alternatives: Bad Santa , The Ref, Diner, The Godfather (Okay, that last one is a bit of a stretch-but remember Duvall with an armload of Christmas gifts? “Get in the car, consigliori. If I wanted to kill you, you’d be dead already.” After all, isn’t that what the holidays are really all about-spending time with The Family?).

And hey-have yourself a merry little Ramakwanzakah!


.
digby 12/23/2006 08:17:00 PM |

 

Beware of Immigrants

by poputonian

We should be very careful when criticizing the anti-Muslim, anti-immigration remarks made by Republican Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia. Sometimes it becomes necessary to defer to the sage wisdom of our elected officials. Goode (rhymes with "screwed" as Interrobang notes), no doubt recalls clear examples in history where immigrants flooded America, "swamped" the resources (as he puts it), took over all civil jurisdictions, and then manipulated the legislative process to favor their own kind and color. By the time this ugly cycle was complete, the original domestic structures of culture, power, worship, government, and tradition had been superseded by the superior values proclaimed by the immigrating people. And remember, Goode is taking the long view when he says, "I fear that in the next century we will have many more Muslims in the United States if we do not adopt the strict immigration policies." When he says that, he is acknowledging that cultural eradication can be a gradual process occurring over decades, even hundreds of years. As a pre-emptive visionary, he's looking out for everyone's best interest, understanding that immigrants can infiltrate and take over.

For example, in one of the earliest anti-immigration utterances on record, an Ohio Valley Indian said this to an English missionary:

"We have great reason to believe you intend to drive us away, and settle the country; or else, why do you come to fight in the land that God has given us?"
...
"Why don’t you and the French fight in the old country, and on the sea? Why do you come to fight on our land? This makes everybody believe you want to take the land from us by force, and settle it."

The author who reported the above quotes also described how the immigrants elbowed their way into the neighborhood, basically shitting on the people who were already there:

White settlers and traders aggressively pushed into that region and prevented accommodation between the British and the Ohio Indians. These "Frontier People" sought not accommodation with the Ohio Indians but rather their removal. Compromise did not enter their thoughts, and magnanimity never governed their actions. Respecting personal freedom more than law and advocating their right to take unused land rather than to await negotiated settlements with trans-Appalachian Indians, these frontier people moved relentlessly into the Ohio Valley. By 1774, approximately fifty thousand whites lived on the trans-Appalachian frontier, and the British army could not control them. By that time, the British no longer remained the principal enemy of the Ohio Indians. Instead it was the relentless westward-moving Americans.

The Indians fought for a while, hoping to deter the unfettered waves of immigration. Eventually, though, the indigenous Indians thought it best to try to accommodate the immigrants. In 1786, the United Indian Nations sent a message to Congress. Author and professor Ralph Young writes about this in his new book called Dissent in America:

As Americans continued to encroach upon Indian lands, the native people decided to take a page out of the newborn republic's history book. The only hope to resist American expansion was for the Indian nations to unite, just as the 13 states had united, and so, in 1786, representatives of the Shawnee, Delaware, Huron, Cherokee, Wabash, Chippewa, Ottawa, Pottawatomie, and Miami formed the United Indian Nations. They issued a message to the U.S. Congress in which they insisted that the Ohio River remain the boundary between the United States and Indian territory and that any further agreements, treaties, or sales of land had to have the unanimous consent of the United Indian Nations.

Protest To The United States Congress, 1786
SPEECH AT THE CONFEDERATE COUNCIL, NOVEMBER 28 AND DECEMBER 18, 1786
[Excerpt]
...
We are still of the same opinion as to the means which may tend to reconcile us to each other; and we are sorry to find, although we had the best thoughts in our minds, during the before-mentioned period, mischief has, nevertheless, happened between you and us. We are still anxious of putting our plan of accommodation into execution, and we shall briefly inform you of the means that seem most probable to us of effecting a firm and lasting peace and reconciliation: the first step towards which should, in our opinion, be that all treaties carried on with the United States, on our parts, should be with the general voice of the whole confederacy, and carried on in the most open manner, without any restraint on either side; and especially as landed matters are often the subject of our councils with you, a matter of the greatest importance and of general concern to us, in this case we hold it indispensably necessary that any cession of our lands should be made in the most public manner, and by the united voice of the confederacy; holding all partial treaties as void and of no effect.

Proving that cultural erosion can result from being "weak on immigration," Professor Young documented another Indian message, this one delivered twenty-three years later:

In 1809, while Tecumseh was undertaking his diplomatic mission, William Henry Harrison, the Governor of the Indiana Territory, negotiated a treaty with several of the Ohio tribes to purchase three million acres of land in southern Indiana. Outraged, Tecumseh wrote a letter to Harrison in which he vehemently protested this purchase, which had not been unanimously endorsed by the United Indian Nations.

LETTER TO GOVERNOR WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON, 1810

"The being within, communing with past ages, tells me that once, nor until lately, there was no white man on this continent; that it then all belonged to red man, children of the same parents, placed on it by the Great Spirit that made them, to keep it, traverse it, to enjoy its productions, and to fill it with the same race, once a happy race, since made miserable by the white people, who are never contented but always encroaching. The way, and the only way, to check and to stop this evil, is for all the red men to unite in claiming a common and equal right in the land, as it was at first, and should be yet; for it never was divided, but belongs to all for the use of each. For no part has a right to sell, even to each other, much less to strangers who want all, and will not do with less."

See, the immigrants are taking over. And pretty soon, the only political representation for the superseded culture comes from fringe outcasts whose voices never figure prominently in political outcomes. In 1830, US Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen of New Jersey gave a speech in protest of the Indian Removal Bill, which was written to force those who got here first from their native lands, to be replaced on the same land by the immigrants:

Our ancestors found these people, far removed from the commotions of Europe, exercising all the rights, and enjoying the privileges, of free and independent sovereigns of this new world. They were not a wild and lawless horde of banditti, but lived under the restraints of government, patriarchal in its character, and energetic in its influence. They had chiefs, head men, and councils. The white men, the author of all their wrongs, approached them as friends -- they extended the olive branch; and being then a feeble colony and at the mercy of the native tenants of the soil, by presents and profession, propitiated their good will. The Indian yielded a slow, but substantial confidence; granted to the colonists an abiding place; and suffered them to grow up to man's estate beside him. He never raised claim of elder title; as white man's wants increased, he opened the hand of his bounty wider and wider. By and by, conditions are changed. His people melt away; his lands are constantly coveted; millions after millions are ceded. The Indian bears it all meekly; he complains, indeed, as well, but suffers on; and now he finds that his neighbor, whom his kindness had nourished, has spread an adverse title over the last remains of his patrimony, barely adequate to his wants, and turns upon him and says, "away we cannot endure you so near us! These forests and rivers, these groves of your fathers, these firesides and hunting grounds, are ours by the right of power, and the force of numbers." Sir, let every treaty be blotted from our records, and in the name of truth and justice, I ask, who is the injured, and who is the aggressor?

Young elaborated on the Indian Removal Bill:

Although Senator Theodore Frelinghuysen strongly opposed Andrew Jackson's Indian Removal Bill that stipulated sending the Cherokee from their native Georgia to Indian Territory (present-day Oklahoma), the bill passed both houses of Congress in 1830. The Cherokee themselves were not silent in standing up for their rights and made a strong effort first to challenge the law and then to forestall enforcement of it. Their case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and in Worcestor v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall ruled in the Cherokee's favor. Unfortunately, a contingent of Cherokee, without the authorization of the Cherokee nation, met with representative of the U.S. Government at New Echota, Georgia, and signed a removal treaty. Once the Senate ratified the Treaty Of New Echota, President Jackson had the authority he needed to force the removal.
...
[The Cherokee were ] forced ... at bayonette point from their lands in Georgia and relocated to a reservation in present-day Oklahoma. It has been estimated that as many as 15,000 of the 60,000 Indians died on the "Trail of Tears."

Give immigrants an inch and they'll take a country. Can you blame Representative Goode for wanting to forestall his own removal to a reservation in Oklahoma, or somewhere else in the interior of the country? The man has vision.

poputonian 12/23/2006 10:59:00 AM |

 
Hallelujah

by digby

Here's another one of those creepy articles about religious zealots who are trying to blow up the world and bring on the bridegroom. Fine, whatever. There have always been end-of-the-worlders around.

But really, how do these nuts get to be so involved in the highest reaches of the US Government? (From last summer):

As I reported for the Nation in my most recent article, "The Birth Pangs of a New Christian Zionism," the White House has convened a series of meetings over the past few months with leaders of Christians United for Israel (CUFI), a newly formed political organization that tells its members that supporting Israel's expansionist policies is "a biblical imperative." CUFI's Washington lobbyist, David Brog, told me that during the meetings, CUFI representatives pressed White House officials to adopt a more confrontational posture toward Iran, refuse aid to the Palestinians and give Israel a free hand as it ramped up its military conflict with Hezbollah.

The White House instructed Brog not to reveal the names of officials he met with, Brog said.

Brog, the former chief-of-staff to Arlen Specter, is now the first full-time lobbyist for the Christian Zionism movement.

Chief of staff to token Pro-choice Republican Arlen Specter? It was bad enough that the Republicans sell their souls to big business, but they also appear to be willing to take money from total nutballs who want to end the world. (It's entirely possible, of course, that he agrees wholeheartedly with the agenda --- but he's still a paid lobbyist.)

As we watch a new naval carrier group steam toward Iran in order to "send a message" you have to wonder whether these people might just be speaking in the ever more desperate George W. Bush's ear.



Oh, and then there's this stuff:

"My first priority is my faith in God, then my family, and then my country. I share my faith because it describes who I am," Gen. Catton says in the video. "You have many men and women who are seeking God’s council and wisdom as we advise the Chairman and the Secretary of Defense. Hallelujah."

.
digby 12/23/2006 10:46:00 AM |

 
Signing On

by digby

So the generals have done the big el-foldo and are going along with the McCain escalation plan. (I'm sure we'll be hearing from these profiles in courage when they whisper in the ears of the media that they were only following orders.)

K-Drum says what I think a lot of us are reluctantly thinking:

Still, honesty compels me to say that I'm glad this is going to happen. I know this makes me a bad person with no concern for human life etc. etc. (feel free to expand on this sentiment in comments), but at some point we have to come to a conclusion on this stuff. Conservatives long ago convinced themselves against all evidence that we could have won in Vietnam if we'd only added more troops or used more napalm or nuked Hanoi or whatever, and they're going to do the same thing in Iraq unless we allow them to play this out the way they want. If they don't get to play the game their way, they'll spend the next couple of decades trying to persuade the American public that there was nothing wrong with the idea of invading Iraq at all. We just never put the necessary resources into it.

Well, screw that. There's nothing we can do to stop them anyway, so give 'em the resources they want. Let 'em fight the war the way they want. If it works -- and after all, stranger things have happened -- then I'll eat some crow. But if it doesn't, there's a chance that the country will actually learn something from this.

I wish it were otherwise. But it isn't.

There is no chance this is going to work, so I do not hold out even the smallest hope that this could be worthwhile in literal terms. It is purely to save face for George Bush. The American involvement in this war is over --- they're just delaying the inevitable until he can crawl back to Crawford and dump the whole disater in the next guy's lap.

As for the long term, it doesn't matter how spectacularly they fail, they will never admit it. We would have won "if only" no matter what actually happens. If only we'd put in more troops earlier, or more troops now, or reinstituted the draft or dropped some daisy cutters or whatever. These people live in a fantasy world in which they are always right but others are continuously conspiring to rob them of whatever they really need to prove it. In the long run, they will insist that the war could have been won if only the wimps hadn't lost their nerve. And they will persuade a fair number of people that this was true --- Americans don't like losers and don't like to think of themselves as losers. The paranoid strain will be happy to re-argue, re-litigate and re-write history down the road to say that America was betrayed from within. It's what they do.

There is some short term political gains to be had, however sick it is to think in these terms. In the long run they will create their own myth but in the short term, they are going to have to deal with the reality that is going to continue to appear on people's televisions every night. And that will rebound to St. John McCain and any other Republicans who jump on this bandwagon as it hurls over the cliff.

This is McCain's plan. He's been clamouring for more troops for a long time and he specifically says today that 20,000 to 35,000 will do the trick. He's now going to have to get into those John Kerry style explanations whenever it comes up ("I was for more troops before others were for more troops and it would have worked if only they'd done it earlier but I thought that it was worth sending in more anyway and in fact we need more troops even now.") There's no pithy sound bite to explain why he still thought sending in more troops after the war was already lost would be a good idea.

So, there's a very, very thin silver lining. Other than that, this is a disastrous failure on top of a disastrous failure and the military, which took great pride in learning the lessons of Vietnam, is once again playing the part of political pawn. Every American who dies from this point forward, dies for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's vanity.


Update: Haha. As usual, Atrios got there first.

.
digby 12/23/2006 09:30:00 AM |

Friday, December 22, 2006

 
Good Neighbors

by digby

Everyone's been following the saga of Representative Virgil Goode of Virginia, I'm sure. He and Lou Dobbs and Tom Tancredo are clinging to one another on the fainting couch, wringing their little hankies and whimpering over the prospects of the brownskinned hordes streaming into the country and ruining our fabulous "culture."

TPM Muckraker has been stalking Republicans all day trying to get them to say whether they support Goode's comments. None seem to be available. But the intrepid Terry Jeffries of Human Events Magazine did share the GOP talking points on today's Situation Room:

JEFFREY: I'm someone who lived in the Muslim world. Twenty years ago I lived in Cairo, Egypt, studied Arabic at the American University in Cairo, had Muslim roommates. I believe Cairo may be the largest Muslim city in the world. It is a city that is very peaceful and not much crime there, a great place. I know that Muslims can be good neighbors. I know they can be good neighbors and Americans here.

So far so good. Very decent of him. But wait...

JEFFREY:I do think under Virgil Goode's concern, there is something Americans should think about. America is a culture I think is basically rooted in the Judeo-Christian civilization of the West. Egypt is a country that is rooted in the civilization of Islam. I think history has shown where you have countries that are divided between those two civilizations it causes friction we don't want to have in the United States and I think that's a legitimate concern for immigration policy.

BLITZER: You think we should block Muslims from coming into this country?

JEFFREY: I think we need to have a immigration policy to make sure the immigrants we bring in are assimilated into our culture and become fully Americans.

And I think quite frankly right now we have a situation where we've had too many immigrants come in legally and illegally and the at the same time the engines of assimilation in the United States have been broken down by multiculturalism.

I think we need to solve that first... We have a First Amendment right to freedom of religion in this country that applies to everybody no matter what their religion is. This man has a right to put his hand on the Koran when he is sworn into Congress.

I do believe, however, that the United States has to worry about what this country is going to be like in the future and our immigration policies have to be calibrated in a way that remain one people and one nation. I do believe it's a serious problem.

Jeffrey is basically saying that he doesn't care who these people worship, he's just doesn't think they are "our kind." This guy would agree. Good to know.

And to think his fearless leader worked so hard to hide this sentiment. (That was when he was running for office, of course.) But every once in a while his little white slip would show. Remember this?

There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours can be free and self-govern. I reject that. I reject that strongly. I believe that people who practice the Muslim faith can self-govern. I believe that people whose skins aren't necessarily -- are a different color than white can self-govern.

Don't you just love these color-blind Republicans? It sure is a better place since they eliminated racism in this country, isn't it?



.
digby 12/22/2006 06:26:00 PM |

 
Yer On Yer Own

by digby


Now they're worried about costs...

Republican House staff members who are losing their jobs in the aftermath of November’s loss of control are hoping Democrats will re-extend the hand of largesse to them next month.

As the old Congress wound down in a scramble of post-election activity, incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi offered to pay two months’ severance to staff members working on some committees and in House leadership offices. But her offer was scuttled — by Republican lawmakers, who complained they didn’t have the opportunity to study the proposal and look at costs.

The Senate already provides two months pay for displaced staff members. One of the affected House staffers said his comrades are mystified that a plan that would benefit employees of Republicans would be killed by Republicans: “We hope the Democrats revisit it.”

Well yeah. Most of us learned a long time ago that if you want to be treated decently by your employer, you always have to depend on the Democrats. Republicans just don't give a damn about working people --- especially the "help." They'll just tell you to sell your copy of "Atlas Shrugged" on e-bay or get one of those great new jobs that just opened up at the Swift meatpacking plants if you need money.


.
digby 12/22/2006 05:56:00 PM |

 
Dissolute Rage

by digby

The last thing I want to do is re-open any self-inflicted wounds on the Christopher Hitchens front --- but I just can't help myself.

There is a long and interesting article in the October issue of New Yorker called "He Knew He Was Right" which is really worth reading. (Sadly, it's not online.) Perhaps his ranting represent some overaching philosophy that is above my head, but frankly, I just find the man incoherent --- if fascinating, in a trainwreck sort of way.

He's also such a monumental prick that I'm very hard pressed to care whether I slander him or not:

In the noisy front room of the North Beach restaurant where the friends had met, Hitchens made a toast: "To the Constitution of the United States, and confusion to its enemies!" The conversation was amiable and boozy; Hitchens might be said to care more for history than for individual humans, but he was in an easy mood, after a drive, in beautiful early-evening light, from Menlo Park. (He and Blue, a writer working on a novel, live with their thirteen-year-old daughter in Washington, D.C., but spend the summer in California, where her parents live.) During the ride, he had discussed with the Pakistani-born taxi-driver the virtues and vices of Benazir Bhutto, while surreptitiously using a bottle of Evian to put out a small but smoky fire that he had set in the ashtray.

And then the young doctor to his left made a passing but sympathetic remark about Howard Dean, the 2004 Presidential candidate; she said that he had been unfairly treated in the American media. Hitchens, in the clear, helpful voice one might use to give street directions, replied that Dean was "a raving nut bag," and then corrected himself: "A raving, sinister, demagogic nut bag." He said, "I and a few other people saw he should be destroyed." He noted that, in 2003, Dean had given a speech at an abortion-rights gathering in which he recalled being visited, as a doctor, by a twelve-year-old who was pregnant by her father. ("You explain that to the American people who think that parental notification is a good idea," Dean said, to applause.) Dean appeared not to have referred the alleged rape to the police; he also, when pressed, admitted that the story was not, in all details, true. For Hitchens, this established that Dean was a "pathological liar."

"All politicians lie!" the women said.

"He's a doctor," Hitchens said.

"But he's a politician."

"No, excuse me," Hitchens said. His tone tightened, and his mouth shrunk like a sea anemone poked with a stick; the Hitchens face can, at moments of dialectical urgency, or when seen in an unkindly lit Fox News studio, transform from roguish to sour. (Hitchens's friend Martin Amis, the novelist, has chided Hitchens for "doing that horrible thing with your lips.") "Fine," Hitchens said. "Now that I know that, to you, medical ethics are nothing, you've told me all I need to know. I'm not trying to persuade you. Do you think I care whether you agree with me? No. I'm telling you why I disagree with you. That I do care about. I have no further interest in any of your opinions. There's nothing you wouldn't make an excuse for."

"That's wrong!" they said.

"You know what? I wouldn't want you on my side." His tone was businesslike; the laughing protests died away. "I was telling you why I knew that Howard Dean was a psycho and a fraud, and you say, 'That's O.K.' Fuck off. No, I mean it: fuck off. I'm telling you what I think are standards, and you say, 'What standards? It's fine, he's against the Iraq war.' Fuck. Off. You're MoveOn.org. 'Any liar will do. He's anti-Bush, he can say what he likes.' Fuck off. You think a doctor can lie in front of an audience of women on a major question, and claim to have suppressed evidence on rape and incest and then to have said he made it up?"

"But Christopher . . ."

"Save it, sweetie, for someone who cares. It will not be me. You love it, you suck on it. I now know what your standards are, and now you know what mine are, and that's all the difference--I hope--in the world."

How'd you like to face that over Christmas turkey?

I took very seriously the charge that I was lowering myself to his level by saying he was open to the idea that the holocaust was a hoax and I apologized for it. But I would have to have completely lost my standards, my humanity and my mind to have fallen as low as that asshole. I still regret the imprecision of my comment --- but not quite as much as I did.



*Ezra wrote more about this back in October.



Update: To be clear: I'm not saying that Hitchens is a monumental prick because he thinks Dean is a liar. He's a monumental prick because he says that Dean is a "raving, sinister, demagogic nut bag" who he and a "few other people" saw should be "destroyed." (Who the fuck is he?)

He is likewise a monumental prick because he behaved like a complete asshole to the woman in the story:

"I was telling you why I knew that Howard Dean was a psycho and a fraud, and you say, 'That's O.K.' Fuck off. No, I mean it: fuck off. I'm telling you what I think are standards, and you say, 'What standards? It's fine, he's against the Iraq war.' Fuck. Off. You're MoveOn.org. 'Any liar will do. He's anti-Bush, he can say what he likes.' .... etc.

Whether or not Howard Dean told the story properly or lied about it seems somewhat trivial in light of Hitchens' inappropriate vomitous verbal explosion. Particularly when he's staking himself to the moral high ground by defending that paragon George W. Bush, the man who made hundreds of speeches in which he made sure that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I don't remember Hitchens setting the record straight on that one.


.
digby 12/22/2006 02:02:00 PM |

 
Not Grandma! Ewwww

by digby

I remember reading a review of "Titanic" that said the movie was unbelievable because young ladies of that era did not have premarital sex. It made me laugh. Now I see that a new study says that 95% of American adults have had prermarital sex, and I'm laughing again:

More than nine out of 10 Americans, men and women alike, have had premarital sex, according to a new study. The high rates extend even to women born in the 1940s, challenging perceptions that people were more chaste in the past.

Contrary to every generation's belief (mine most especially), they did not invent sex. Women who were born in the 40's came into adulthood in the late 50's, 60's and 70's, for crying out loud. I thought everyone knew that people were fucking like crazy during that era. (It wasn't called the sexual revolution for nothing.)

But then people have always been doing it. A lot. It's just that before modern feminism and the pill and the right to choose, there were "good girls" and "bad girls" and shotgun weddings and back alley abortions and lots and lots of guilt and shame about doing what humans have been programmed to do since we emerged from the primordial slime. You can't talk people out of having sex. But you can allow society's moral scolds and hypocritical busybodies to make everyone miserable about it.

I'm sure that today's society has problems with sexual issues that are of concern. But going back to the days when society enshrined lying and guilt as a positive social value is hardly going to solve them.

Not that that they won't keep trying...


.
digby 12/22/2006 12:57:00 PM |

 
Smart Politics

by digby

I read that Jon Corzine signed the new civil unions bill in New Jersey yesterday as a result of the NJ supreme court ruling that the state had to create marriage equality for gay people. There is an interesting story about this that I think is instructive for progressives as we start to dig our way out of this conservative era.

First, I should say that I don't have a big problem with civil unions in that I think they should be available everywhere for people who aren't religious. I'm happily married, but I would have been very glad to have had a civil union if there had been such a thing available and it offered exactly the same legal benefits. The word "marriage" holds no particular significance for a godless, dirty hippy like me who believes in all kinds of non-traditional social arrangements.

Having said that, this country's legal system and social traditions are all designed to benefit people who are "married" and there's no sense in denying that. So I'm sympathetic to the notion that civil unions for gay people are a separate-but-equal concept that relegates gays to a different standard than straights for no good reason. Many are religious and would like the option of a legal religious ceremony, and basically they just want society to recognize that they have the same right to create a family as anyone else. I understand that, and if I were gay I might very well insist on the right to "marry" rather than accept a civil union compromise.

Unfortunately, the nation is slow to embrace that wholeheartedly, so a series of interim steps seem to be the most logical way for people to grapple with this. The question for progressives is how to keep the momentum going so that the idea of marriage is not foreclosed. I think what they did in New Jersey is a valuable primer on how these things are done.

First, it's important to recognize that the court gave the legislature no choice but to come up with some sort of scheme that would allow gays the same legal benefits of marriage as straight couples. The question was whether the legislature would go full out and open the doors to marriage or create civil unions. But another question lingered as well --- would they create civil unions and also foreclose the possibility of marriage, something the court did not preclude them from doing.

Some progressives and gay rights advocates in New Jersey made the decision to apply as much pressure as they could on the legislature to go for marriage, and in the process moved what was almost pre-ordained to be a civil union bill, to one that would cause some pain on any legislators who tried to mollify their right flank with an accompanying vote to take marriage completely off the table. It left the door open and that means that progressives won't have to reinvent the wheel when the time comes around to revisit the issue. This is smart politics.

Speaking at the signing of the civil unions act in Trenton this morning, Senator Loretta Weinberg told the audience she looks forward to revisiting this issue. Weinberg also said she believes the state will achieve marriage equality by the end of her next term (January 2012).

Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality had this to say:

Today we celebrate not a destination, but a journey.

Gay marriage wasn't even on the radar 20 years ago and I expect in 20 more years it will be legal. This is social progress that cannot be held back. But it pays to be always thinking one step ahead with these things, paving the way for it to be easier on the next round ---- moving the goal posts back our way with each move.

A lot of credit for redicovering how progressive politics are done can be given to young, smart activists like Juan Melli, the man behind Bluejersey.com, who has been named New Jersey politician of the year. He and his cohorts did amazing things during the election season in New Jersey --- and they came up with a very effective series of web ads on the gay marriage legislation that were designed to appeal to the common sense and decency of people who are just now figuring out what they think about all this --- including the legislators who voted on the issue.

This is progressive politics today. It's happening all over the country. Give it up for the new kids.



.
digby 12/22/2006 11:33:00 AM |

Thursday, December 21, 2006

 
Where's Rover?

by digby

One of he things I always wondered about the Rove-as-genius myth was why Bush's adminstration was so lame if Rove was so great. It's true that Junior was very popular for a while after 9/11, but any president would have been. He was good at pretending he had won a mandate, but he never actually did it. He's a ruthless, slimy Republican operative, but no better than many other ruthless, slimy Republican operatives.

So what's the "architect" of this failed Republican realignment doing now that he's been shown to be a loser at the one thing he's always supposedly been good at?

Since the November election, Rove has been promoting the contrarian idea that the Republicans lost their majorities in the House and Senate not because of Bush's unpopularity or because voters turned against the Iraq war but because congressional Republicans didn't sufficiently live up to their core ideals, such as a commitment to spending restraint, a muscular foreign policy, and strict ethics. In other words, associates say, Rove is arguing that the GOP lost control because congressional Republicans weren't conservative enough.

White House insiders say Bush is counting on Rove, who is the president's main political adviser and deputy chief of staff, to define "common ground" in dealing with the Democrats who now control Congress. In Rove's view, that means the White House shouldn't stray too far from the conservative base and should continue making policy from the political right–and not give too much ground to the Democrats. Rove argues privately that the Dems should also reach out to the White House and that Bush shouldn't do most of the compromising. One of Rove's theories is that the Democrats can be maneuvered into a series of difficult choices next year as they try to enact their legislative agenda and pass the federal budget.

The central choice, according to Rove, will be to cut spending or raise taxes. If congressional Democrats cut spending, their liberal base will be alienated. If they raise taxes, rank-and-file voters will be unhappy. GOP insiders suspect that Rove also had a big hand in distancing Bush from the Iraq Study Group because he believed the bipartisan panel was too critical of current Iraq policy. Rove, insiders say, believes that victory is still achievable and that Bush should pursue it as vigorously as he can. The president made those points at his news conference today.

It's typical of Rove to project Bush's weakness on to others and then attack it. Here he's blaming the congress for not being "conservative" enough, which is the standard rap on Junior. I doubt that the Republicans are buying it. The Bush family will not ever be given another chance after two failed presidencies.("I have no future," says Jeb Bush) Rove is a member of the Bush clan and he won't be forgiven. All that self-serving mythology he created about his power and his genius is coming back to bite him.

I won't even address his plans to corner the Democrats. If they are stupid enough to let this happen then they deserve what they get. Bush is the most wounded president since Richard Nixon; there's nothing to fear from him. (And Rove's talent has never been this kind of politics. He's an election strategist and a smear artist, period.)

I have no idea if he believes that the US can still achieve victory in Iraq and is pushing Bush to escalate. It could very easily be some sniping among insiders. But it's also possible that he's pushing it because he's still convinced that the problem is that Americans are just unhappy because they don't think we are "winning." It's all about how people "feel" with him, never about what they see or think or know. The administration has never understood that when the people found out there were no WMD after the endless repetition of "with a coalition of the willing we will disarm Saddam Hussein" --- "winning" lost all meaning.

It would be like Rove to marshal all the wingnuts and persuade Junior that a show of strength will impress all the screaming GOP fangirls if he just acts like a winner. Governance by PR campaign is his specialty. Whatever the case, Rove is now in the process of saving his own reputation and legacy along with Bush's and his advice is political in ways that are far different than the electoral experience he's known for. Escalating the war is the smart move for him. He's got to shoot the moon or he's finished.

The man should have been fired as Bush promised he would do if it turned out any of his staff had leaked the Plame information. But he's still there, being paid by you and me to keep this country on its nightmare trajectory to perdition.


.
digby 12/21/2006 11:05:00 PM |

 
A Christmas Blogger

by digby

Thank you, everyone, for all your generosity. It's an indescribably wonderful feeling to know that so many people value the work you do. I am very, very grateful.

I must particularly thank all of my friends in the blogosphere who passed the Christmas stocking on my behalf. Thanks very much to my pals:

John Amato
Jane Hamsher
Atrios
Avedon at The Sideshow
Peter Daou
Glenn Greenwald
Steve Gilliard
The General
GOTV
Attaturk
Jeralyn at Talk Left
A Tiny Revolution
Dave Niewert
Lean Left
The American Street
Taylor Marsh
Mia Culpa
Colorado Bob
Middle Earth Journal
Blog Revolution
D-Day
Trekie Net Nerds
A Spork In The Drawer
James Wolcott
Unfutz
Driftglass (who also shared a heartwarming Christmas moment. I'm all that keeps Santa going...)
My Supreme Overlord Kos

Plus:

Street Prophets
The Broad View
Leftword
Norwegianity
SW's Energy Gap
The ITT List
Après tout...
EZ Smirkzz 3.0
Sadly No!
Michael Berube

TBOGG!



Also thanks to the hardest working man in the blogosphere, Matt Stoller, who insisted that people want me to keep writing about politics (and perhaps finally getting around to penning the long awaited Rise and Fall of the Codpiece) and Rick Perlstein who granted me the great privilege of posting excerpts throughout the year of his upcoming blockbuster Nixonland: The Politics and Culture of the American Berserk, 1965-1972.

If there are any other bloggers I left out, please let me know. My good friend Santa is making a list and he's checkin' it twice.

Thank you all again and Happy Hollandaise everyone.





Now, back to our regularly scheduled hatefilled screeds against Rudolph and carols and puppies on Christmas morning. This is a secular progressive blog, after all and everyone knows that we hate Christmas. Bah Humbug.


.
digby 12/21/2006 03:58:00 PM |

 
Update: New posts below



(hopefully) and you can get your necessary Atrios fix at http://eschaton08.blogspot.com/ temporarily because blogger is, unsurprisingly, bloggered. Fixed!

Dear Santa

by digby

Last year I asked my readers to put a little change in the kitty if they had it to spare and many of you did. It was a wonderful affirmation of what I do and I'm still basking in its glow. Well, it's that time of the year again, and while we are all counting our blessings and fighting the war on Christmas and freedom, I'm here once again, stocking in hand, to ask that if you have your credit card out and it isn't maxed, you might send a little Christmas cheer my way once again.

I wish the blog was a self sustaining commercial enterprise, but sadly, there are only a handful of them that can claim such success and they are much, much bigger than this one. So, I'm going directly to you, my readers, in the hopes that you'll help me keep this little site rolling for another year.

I spent much of the last year working on deals to move the blog to various MSM-style projects that never materialized. As with so many things in life, big blog talk usually equals zilch when all is said and done. So we still creak along here on blogspot with respectable traffic and lots of great friends who often link here and give the blog good mojo. (But I hereby put out the call once again to designers who have ideas for Hullabaloo and we'll try to get those going this year without the "help" of the legit media. Who needs 'em, I sez?)

However, I'm hopeful that I will be able to explore some very exciting opportunities to write a book, the details of which have not been worked out but which I may now have the time to do --- with your help. With the Big Election coming up, this may be the right moment to write my magnum opus on the history of the codpiece.(Just kidding.)

And as we are entering into some very new and exciting territory for liberals everywhere, I want to keep blogging in any case. We have some power to do good and even more importantly --- stop the insanity. It's going to get a little bit crazy here in the blogosphere, what with the primary season soon upon us, but it's all to the good. I want to stay in the game and see if we can continue to make the impact that I truly believe we are already making.

Many of my fellow bloggers will be raising money for candidates and doing many creative and exciting new forms of online activism. I have never done a lot of that sort of activity although I will certainly keep all my readers informed about the action and point them in the right direction. (I don't raise money because, frankly, I suck at it, as you can tell by this post.)

What I may not suck so much at is observing and analyzing what's going on in the press and in Washington from an outsider's perspective. The mainstream media is reluctantly learning that they cannot get away with their lazy reporting and DC insider provincialism without incurring a rapid and energetic response. During the run-up to the next election, like all my lefty blogger brethren, this blog will deconstruct these cheap narratives and phony character attacks and we will alert millions of people all over the country. We are watching them and they know it.

We will also be watching the new Democratic majority. We will be here to praise them and spread the good word whenever we can. And we will also be here to hold their feet to the fire if they lose their nerve. The blogosphere and the netroots represent a vanguard of well-informed, highly engaged citizens who are not easily fooled. We are keeping score. The new technology allows us to research speeches and votes in an instant and we can track contributors and expenditures and travel --- all that good stuff that starts to corrupt around the edges. We are sophisticated people who understand how the world works and we aren't expecting "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" idealism. But this political culture that's been awash in corporate money is ruining this country and we expect our representatives to honor their commitments to honest, clean government.

And finally, in the run-up to the next election, this blog will continue to discuss many other things, from politics in popular culture to political history to, hopefully, a bit more wonkery as we start to delve into issues for the first time in six years. I'm going to be extremely engaged, as always, in issues of civil rights and civil liberties and I will continue to write about the under-the-radar attempts to subvert them, whether it's through religion or government or corporate hegemony.

And we will all try our best to entertain you and stimulate you and make you feel, as I do, that by learning and reading we are arming ourselves to be informed, engaged and active political citizens. I have no patience with people who think it is a waste of time to read blogs when people could be stuffing envelopes. Many of us will do both, I have no doubt, and god love those who do. But I want us all to be able to sit at that Christmas dinner table, around the water cooler or on the stump, armed with the arguments and information that can engage the apathetic and the young and fight back the stale political conventional wisdom that has brought us to the brink these last six years. It sounds corny, but if we can do that, we can change the world.



Finally, I cannot say enough about the writers who contribute to the blog --- tristero, poputonian and Dennis. They will not share in the proceeds of this little fund raiser --- I asked and they refused, so their contribution to my well being is enormous and I thank them. They are all first rate friends, writers and supporters.

So if you can and if you want, you can hit the little buttons to the left or use my post box address to send along a little stocking stuffer to keep the Hullabaloo homefires burning for another year. (I added a subscription feature at a couple of readers' request, if you like to use it. You can cancel at any time, of course.) To those of you who have sent in donations during the year, thank you again. It's like Christmas all over again when I get one.

And to those who cannot contribute, perhaps you would agree to comment once in a while. This little community has one of the smartest political dialogs around on any given day and I'd love to see more of you participate. It's where I get some of my best ideas.


So, there you have it. (whew.) Have a great holiday everyone.

cheers --- digby



*I'll be posting as usual, but this post will stay at the top for a little while. (That's what the pros say to do and who am I to argue?) So scroll down for new stuff.


** I'm not at home and my email address has been behaving strangely for weeks, due to a changeover to a new cable system, so please forgive me if you don't hear from me immediately.
digby 12/21/2006 08:43:00 AM |

 
The Gulag Comes Home

by digby


The government is "keeping families together" in camps down in Texas while they await hearings or deportations. You can read all about it here .

The whole thing is an extrajudicial, privatized boondoggle (what else is new?) in which a bunch of people are basically jailed with little or no due process (what else is new?)

But can someone please tell me how this can be necessary?

Jeans and t-shirts have been replaced with jail uniforms; children are issued uniforms as soon as they can fit into them ? and everyone must wear name tags, even the babies.

Name tags, sure. Jail uniforms? Purely dehumanizing.

Keep in mind that these are all people from countries other than Mexico. It's a result of the ending of the "catch and release" program that allowed these migrants, many of whom were seeking asylum, to be released on humanitarian grounds. The kids used to be sent to a residential facility where they went to school. Here they gt one hour of instruction (English) a day and are allowed on hour of indoor recreation.

Nobody knows how long these children will be kept behind bars. From an editorial in the Austin Statesman:

The backlog is so strained that U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, the grandson of Mexican immigrants, noted: "The department and the federal courts are straining under the weight of an immigration litigation system that is broken. Under the current system, criminal aliens generally receive more opportunities for judicial review of their removal orders than noncriminal aliens."

In short, illegal immigrants who commit crimes get speedier legal attention than these children, who have done nothing wrong other than follow their parents.

Nothing will change until reforms are initiated, and Congress has done little to fix a broken immigration policy and the machinery to enforce it. The result is the private prison facility in Taylor and a smaller one in Pennsylvania.

According to those familiar with the families in the private prison, children of those apprehended are dressed in prison jumpsuits and receive only one hour of schooling and one hour of recreation a day. The trade-off is that they get to remain with their families.

Hard information on the program and the private prison is difficult to come by. The company running the prison refers questions to the immigration office, and the immigration office has had little to say about the situation.

News of the 400 people — 200 of them children — being held in the T. Don Hutto unit in Taylor has sparked protests from several groups interested in immigrant issues. They are concerned about everything from care and feeding of those being held to the psychological effect of incarceration on children and families.

Federal authorities began detaining all unauthorized immigrants last summer. The reason for the detention was that so many who were charged with unauthorized entry into the United States never appeared for their court dates. They melted back into the population.

It is understandable in this age of terrorism that authorities want to keep tabs on illegal immigrants and ensure their appearances in courts. But there should be a way to see that they have their day in court without imprisoning their children.

Keeping families intact would appear to be a humane policy, as well. But the result of the new detention policy has been to jail children, and that is not acceptable. Those who have visited the detainees, some of whom are seeking political asylum, say the detention is damaging.

Little kids in prison jumpsuits and nametags presents a sad picture.

It's more than sad. It's sick.

Michael Chertoff and Julie Myers believe this is a great step forward and plan to build more of these for-profit facilities.
digby 12/21/2006 08:40:00 AM |

 
A Retraction

by digby

I have been roundly chastized for suggesting that Christopher Hitchens is open to the idea that the Holocaust is a hoax. I admit that I was being hyperbolic and I regret writing it. I extrapolated that he was open to the idea it was a hoax from the fact that he is so intimate with a range of Holocaust deniers, whom he insists on calling "revisionists" and whose shoddy scholarship he defends for inexplicable reasons.

Max Blumenthal called him out on Huffington Post last year:

You [Hitchens] then wrote your Minority Report column for the Nation on October 3,1994 about a dialogue between you and Faurisson. "It is widely alleged that gas chambers-- 'chemical slaughterhouses' -- were used to destroy European Jewry," you reported Faurisson telling you. "Very well, where is there a surviving authentic model, or photograph, or model of the operation of one such?"

You replied, parrotting Faurisson's own words to Berenbaum:

"My own first answer must be that I have never seen such a relic of an operating gas chamber (though I have seen small-scale crematoria in camp museums in Germany)."

Faurisson then asked you whether you "understood that much anti-Nazi propaganda is just that? That there was no soap made from human fat? That the confession of Rudolph Hoss, commandant of Auschwitz was extorted by coercion and in any case mentioned a total death at Auschwitz that not even the Israel experts at Yad Vashem credit?"

Your unbelievable reply: "Here, my answers are yes and yes, because I know that the story in the first case, and Hoss in the second, have been debunked."

And who "debunked" these stories other than Faurisson himself? Who?

Charles Taylor's review of Deborah Lipstadt's book about Irving's trial (in which he was found to be a holocaust denier)points out, however, that Hitchens has been very clear that his dinner companion, David Irving, does not say the holocaust was a hoax:

Giving Hitchens the benefit of the doubt about the lies of [Irving's] Goebbels book still does not excuse this claim from his 1996 Vanity Fair article: "And, incidentally, [Irving] has never and not once described the Holocaust as a 'hoax'."

Restricting ourselves just to what Hitchens could have known before writing that, we find that, testifying at the 1988 trial of a Canadian Holocaust denier, Irving said, "No documents whatever show that a Holocaust had ever happened." What's the defense of this? That Irving doesn't use the word "hoax"? OK then. How about these?

In a 1991 speech, Irving said, "Until 1988, I believed that there had been something like a Holocaust ... but [in] 1988 ... I met people who knew differently and could prove to me that story was just a legend."

In 1990: "The holocaust of Germans in Dresden really happened. That of the Jews in the gas chambers of Auschwitz is an invention."

And, again, in 1991: "More women died on the back seat of Senator Edward Kennedy's car at Chappaquiddick than died in the gas chambers of Auschwitz."

Hitchens does not defend these people only on the basis of free speech. If that were so I would not have written anything at all. As repugnant as what these people write is, I do not support (although I understand) the European laws against such things.

What I also do not support, any more than I support balderdash like creationism or Charles Murray's "Bell Curve", is an agenda masquerading as scholarship. And that obviously is what these holocaust "revisionists" are selling. Hitchens is not a stupid man and while his defense of them may have began as reflexive contrariness, he has subsequently sold his own credibility in defending them.

So it is true that I have no proof that Hitchens is open to the idea that the holocaust was a "hoax" and it was a mistake to say that unequivocally. The only proof I have is that he is a great defender of the shoddy scholarship of "revisionists" who believe that the Holocaust is a "legend."

My intention in the post below was to show that Hitchens' contrary iconoclasm was on a collision course with itself. I did it badly, in a hurry and I regret it.

mea culpa.


.
digby 12/21/2006 08:29:00 AM |

Wednesday, December 20, 2006

 
Hitching A Ride To Hell

by digby

A friend sent me this interesting little tid-bit which reminds me that Christoher Hitchens must be face deep in the egg-nog right about now:

David Irving, the historian jailed for three years in Austria for denying the Holocaust, is free after a court reduced his prison sentence on appeal.

Irving, who was sentenced in February, was released after Vienna's highest court ruled today that he should serve one year in prison and the remainder of his sentence on probation.

You'll recall that old Hitchens was quite the staunch defender of Irving --- and not just on free speech principle, mind you. He defended many of his conclusions as well:

It is best not to mince words.... What of your precious free speech, they say, when the Holocaust is immune from criticism on your own soil?.... Now may I mince a word or two? I have been writing in defense of Mr. Irving for several years. When St. Martin's Press canceled its contract to print his edition of the Goebbels diaries, which it did out of fear of reprisal, I complained loudly and was rewarded by an honest statement from the relevant editor -- Thomas Mallon -- that his decision had been a "profile in prudence." I will not take refuge in the claim that I was only defending Mr. Irving's right to free speech. I was also defending his right to free inquiry. You may have to spend time on some grim and Gothic Web sites to find this out, but he is in fact not a "denier," but a revisionist, and much-hated by the full-dress "denial" faction. The pages on Goebbels, as in his books on Dresden, Churchill and Hitler, contain some highly important and damning findings from his work in the archives of the Third Reich.

Irving's so hated by the Holocaust deniers that he's featured as an expert, along with Hitchens, on the Stormfront website.

One wonders what Hitchens feels about the Iranian Dark Lord, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's, little Holocaust denial confab the other day --- the same Hitchens who called Juan Cole an apologist for the Iranian president simply because he correctly translated a speech. (Of course, Hitchens' main beef with Ahmadinejad seems to be that he's an "uncultured jerk" so perhaps it's not a problem.)

But that's got to be nothing compared to the this. (Hitchens, you'll all recall, wrote a book claiming (rightfully, in this case) that Kissinger is a war criminal.):

Former US secretary of state Henry Kissinger, one of the Republican Party’s most respected senior statesmen, says that the Bush administration may have to give up on democracy in Iraq to salvage the goal of stabilising the country.

Kissinger — who has frequently advised US President George Bush in the three years since the US invaded Iraq — told the Los Angeles Times that he believed democracy for now was out of reach for Iraq.

His comments, coming after the US electorate earlier this month dealt ruling Republicans a resounding defeat in congress, largely over the lack of progress in the war in Iraq, sharpened the criticism aimed at the White House even from within Bush’s own ranks.

Kissinger’s analysis also broadens the options being proposed for the war.

Meanwhile, Republican presidential hopeful John McCain, a US senator who as a Navy pilot spent several years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, told ABC News US soldiers were “fighting and dying for a failed policy”.

He repeated his longstanding call for more US troops in Iraq, saying on Sunday that the 145000 soldiers already there needed reinforcements to ensure military victory.

McCain is exploring making a bid for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.

Kissinger, who supported the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein, said it would have been better for the US to postpone democratic development and instead install a strong Iraqi leader.

“If we had done that right away, that might have been the best way to proceed.”

Yesterday it was revealed that Republican front runner and avowed Islamofascist fighter St John McCain just hired Kissinger for his campaign.

Hitchens is a man who must no longer have any bearings. He is open to the idea that the holocaust is a hoax, just like all those nasty islamofascists he believes are just like Hitler. And now the war criminal who Hitchens devoted a good portion of his life to bringing down has joined the anti-Islamofascist cause --- and he's bringing his old Pinochet tactics to the war. The war that Hitchens declared "A War To Be Proud Of."

(For a thorough dismantling of that article see this post by Cave Shadows who writes: "Hitchens has coalesced his defense of the Iraq invasion almost entirely to the premise that the US needs to be conducting this occupation as a dry run for invasions to come.")

Today Islamofascists and Holocaust deniers and war criminals are all mixed up in one big Hitchens stew of cross purposes. The cognitive dissonance must be getting dizzying.

Hide the cough syrup.


.
digby 12/20/2006 09:55:00 AM |

 
Ponies Full Of Money

by digby

I have a little suggestion. Before anybody signs another blank check for Bush to expand the military, escalate the war or add more than 70 billion to the "emergency" supplemental, how about we make the Pentagon account for this:

The Pentagon is still struggling to get a handle on the unprecedented number of contractors now helping run the nation's wars, losing millions of dollars because it is unable to monitor industry workers stationed in far-flung locations, according to a congressional report.

The investigation by the Government Accountability Office, which released the report Tuesday, found that the Defense Department's inability to manage contractors effectively has hurt military operations and unit morale and cost the Pentagon money.

"With limited visibility over contractors, military commanders and other senior leaders cannot develop a complete picture of the extent to which they rely on contractors as an asset to support their operations," said the GAO, the investigative arm of Congress.

According to the report, some 60,000 contractors are supporting the Army in Southwest Asia, a region that includes Iraq. That figure is compared to the 9,200 contractors used to support the military in the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

This unprecedented number of contractors on the battlefield means loss of visibility, GAO reports.

Commanders are often unsure how many contractors use their bases and require food, housing and protection, according to the report. One Army official said the service estimates losing about $43 million each year on free meals provided to contractors who also receive a food allowance.

The military does not have enough personnel devoted to overseeing the implementation of contracts, GAO found. In one case, a single person was assigned to monitor compliance of a contract at 27 different installations throughout Iraq in just a six-month tour.

Jane wrote about this the other day over at Firedoglake, noting that the Iraq study Group said "there are roughly 5,000 civilian contractors in the country." Wise old mandarins indeed.

There is some good news:

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., the incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, said he plans to establish a subcommittee to conduct thorough investigations, including one on contractor abuse.

The war profiteering that's gone on for the last six years is an extremely important issue and I hope the new congress gets to the bottom of it. Not only are they bankrupting the nation, every taxpayer dollar they spend on Bush cronies and graft and corruption in the military industrial comples is a dollar not spent on the actual troops. This should offend every right thinking person in the nation, no matter what their partisan persuasion.


Update: Maha has a very intriguing post up that adds much to this discussion of what this war is costing us.

The January 2007 issue of Harper’s (the cover art is a photograph of a rubber duckie) has an article by Chalmers Johnson titled “Republic or Empire: A National Intelligence Estimate on the United States.” It’s not online and won’t be for awhile (once again, Harper’s policy about not putting articles online until they’re a couple of months old makes me crazy), but reading the article in light of Baker’s news story is guaranteed to scare the living bleep out of you.

In the article, Chalmers discusses “military Keynesianism,” in which “the flow of the nation’s wealth — from taxpayers and (increasingly) foreign lenders through the government to military contractors and (decreasingly) back to the taxpayers.” As a result, “the domestic economy requires sustained military ambition in order to avoid recession or collapse.” Then, he ties military Keynesianism to the “unitary executive” theory and Bush’s increasingly unchecked power. Meanwhile, citizens and media dutifully “abet their government in maintaining a facade of constitutional democracy until the nation drifts into bankruptcy."

I haven't read the article but I will look forward to doing so. Read Maha's post in the meantime. This is a subject which is long overdue for discussion in my opinion.


.
digby 12/20/2006 09:03:00 AM |

 
Merry Kitzmas!

by tristero

Merry Kitzmas! What? You don't know about Kitzmas???!!!? It's the one year anniversary of the happy resolution of Kitzmiller v. Dover, which dealt a major blow to the purveyors of "intelligent design" creationism. If you have an hour or two over the holidays, this is a perfect time to settle into a nice, intelligently designed (by humans, of course) chair or sofa and read Judge Jones brilliant decision.

Kitzmiller is, along with the fall '06 elections, one of the few major victories for the side of reason and science during the Bush infestation. Its importance for the future of science education cannot be overestimated. Let's not forget that Scopes lost (and for those of you who only know about Scopes through Inherit the Wind, go thou and read Summer for the Gods) for the real story, which is far more interesting.

I'm off again 'til the New Year. Happy Holidays and New Year to all!

tristero 12/20/2006 06:55:00 AM |

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

 
Comedy Is Tragedy Plus Time

by digby

Matt Yglesias wonders why Tom Friedman is speaking in stupid riddles. (If I had a nickel for every time I've asked myself that question...)

In this particular case he can't figure out what Friedman means when he says:

"Do you think the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?"

If you answered "Yes," you would not be allowed to work in Iraq. You could go to Korea, Japan or Germany - but not Iraq. Only those who understand that in the Middle East the shortest distance between two points is never a straight line should be allowed to carry out U.S. policy there. . . .

I have no idea. But when I read it a couple of years ago, I laughed out loud because it immediately reminded me of the Alan Alda character in "Crimes and Misdemeanors" whose line "if it bends, it's funny; if it breaks it's not funny," evokes one of the most hilarious Woody Allen eye rolling reaction shots ever.

Truly, Tom Friedman is one of those utterly pompous, psuedo-intellectual Woody Allen characters who have nothing to say but who obscurely blather on as if their gibberish has some great significance. And because he's been anointed as a "great thinker" everybody nods their head in agreement because they are afraid they're missing something so profound it's above their heads.

Take this one for instance:

So here's how I feel: I feel as if the president is presenting us with a beautiful carved mahogany table — a big, bold, gutsy vision. But if you look underneath, you discover that this table has only one leg. His bold vision on Iraq is not supported by boldness in other areas. And so I am terribly worried that Mr. Bush has told us the right thing to do, but won't be able to do it right

.

Hookay. If people think the shortest distance to between two points is a table leg, they are bold and gutsy but they should go to Japan, which has very nice mahogany tables. Or something. Seriously, half the time I don't know what the hell he's going on about and I'm convinced he doesn't either.



.
digby 12/19/2006 09:52:00 PM |

 
Didn't We Tell You That Bush Was A Fool?

by digby

Back in July of 2004, I wrote a post recommending that people check out this video by fellow blogger and musician Brew. I agreed with the sentiments, of course, but at the time I sort of knew it was prematurely anti-Codpiece for commercial success. The country was still mindlessly flagwaving and Junior was still well over 50 percent.

Brew happened to write me about something else today and I was reminded of his song and wondered what had happened with it. It turns out that like everything else these days, it's up on Youtube.

It's a difficult video to watch. (There are some very harsh images of war, so be advised.) But there are some other images that nobody ever talks about. They barely talked about it when they happened and they don't talk about it today even though the whole country is discussing the massive mistake that Iraq has turned out to be: the millions of people who were against this war from the beginning. And all those millions of people all over the world were not against the war because they were pacifists (although some probably were) and it was not because they were terrorist sympathizers or "hate America firsters" as was popular slander at the time. It was because they knew from the get that George W. Bush and all his neo-poleons were liars.

This song was ahead of their time when Brew and his bandmates put it together. Its time has come:


digby 12/19/2006 06:41:00 PM |

 
Mission Accomplished

by digby


As I was reading the various stories today about escalating the war and increasing the size of the military, I came across this:

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans: Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the Battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country.

[...]

In the images of fallen statues, we have witnessed the arrival of a new era. For a hundred years of war, culminating in the nuclear age, military technology was designed and deployed to inflict casualties on an ever-growing scale. In defeating Nazi Germany and imperial Japan, Allied Forces destroyed entire cities, while enemy leaders who started the conflict were safe until the final days. Military power was used to end a regime by breaking a nation. Today, we have the greater power to free a nation by breaking a dangerous and aggressive regime. With new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians. No device of man can remove the tragedy from war. Yet it is a great advance when the guilty have far more to fear from war than the innocent.

[...]

The Battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11th, 2001, and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men — the shock troops of a hateful ideology — gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed.

In the Battle of Afghanistan, we destroyed the Taliban, many terrorists, and the camps where they trained. We continue to help the Afghan people lay roads, restore hospitals, and educate all of their children. Yet we also have dangerous work to complete. As I speak, a special operations task force, led by the 82nd Airborne, is on the trail of the terrorists, and those who seek to undermine the free government of Afghanistan. America and our coalition will finish what we have begun.

From Pakistan to the Philippines to the Horn of Africa, we are hunting down al-Qaida killers. Nineteen months ago, I pledged that the terrorists would not escape the patient justice of the United States. And as of tonight, nearly one-half of al-Qaida's senior operatives have been captured or killed.

The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We have removed an ally of al-Qaida, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused, and deliberate, and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th — the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.

Read the whole thing and remind yourself how surreal it all was. The hubris and naivete combined with the cynical rhetorical manipulation are dizzying.

If the press had been something other than servile bootlickers, that complete mess of a speech would have been deconstructed from the moment it was spoken. He implied that Iraq was involved in 9/11 and he clearly believed that Don Rumsfeld had "invented" some new kind of warfare that meant we could dispense with all that ugliness with death and blood and horror. What an incredible fool this man is.

But no more a fool than the puerile sycophants in the press who on that day fell for his flightsuit stunt like the screaming teenagers in "A Hard Day's Night." It was, I think, the worst moment of American journalism in a century (and that includes Lewinsky.)

That speech was given 1328 days ago.

Our entire involvement in WWII from Pearl Harbor to the Japanese surrender lasted 1315.



.
digby 12/19/2006 05:26:00 PM |

 
Unaffordable

by digby


Fred Barnes just said that it's not true that the joint chiefs unanimously oppose an escalation of the war --- it's that they are afraid Bush won't send enough troops to get the job done and that if it's a temporary escalation, the whole place will fall apart after we pull those troops back out.

He didn't think those were important differences of opinion, naturally, because he has once again cast his lot with Junior, but really, these are huge and serious concerns.

It's clear that Bush is listening to these armchair Neopoleons because they are saying that he can "win" if he just sends in a few more troops for a few months and claps louder. And his generals are all saying that the only way he can "win" is with a massive new army that stays in Iraq forever. That is the reality based choice for "winning." Period. And it isn't going to happen because 70% of the country have wised up to the fact that this pony hunt is making the country less safe and it's costing us our future.

According to the WaPo this afternoon:

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it.

[...]

The Army has already temporarily increased its size from 482,000 active-duty soldiers in 2001 to 507,000 today and soon to 512,000. But the Army wants to make that 30,000-soldier increase permanent and then grow an additional 7,000 soldiers or more per year. The Army estimates that every 10,000 additional soldiers will cost about $1.2 billion a year.

That is on top of this:

The Defense Department has requested $99.7 billion more in emergency funding for Iraq, Afghanistan and the war on terrorism that, if approved, would bring war spending in fiscal 2007 to a record $170 billion.

The request is in a 17-page memo approved Dec. 7 by Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England that is under review at the White House. About half the new money -- $48 billion -- would go to the Army, which says its costs have risen sharply as fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan drags on and more equipment is destroyed or damaged.

The request, added to the $70 billion that Congress approved in September, is 45 percent higher than the $117 billion in supplemental funding approved last year. It reflects an earlier England memo telling the services they could include expenses they considered related to the global war on terror even if not strictly to operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Do the American people really want to continue to mortgage their own future and their children's futures so that George W. Bush can save face? Because that's what this escalation is all about. Every penny that's spent on this not only prolongs our involvement in this misbegotten war, exacerbating the horror for the Iraqis and robbing Americans of money that is desperately needed for other things.

Like this, for instance:

Reports of homicides, assaults and other violent offenses surged by nearly 4 percent in the first six months of the year compared with the same time period in 2005, according to the FBI's latest Uniform Crime Report. The numbers included an increase of nearly 10 percent for robberies, which many criminologists consider a leading indicator of coming trends.

The results follow a 2.5 percent jump in violent crime for 2005, which at the time represented the largest increase in 15 years.

[...]

The numbers come amid heightened criticism of the federal government from many police chiefs and state law enforcement officials, who complain that the Bush administration has retreated from fighting traditional crime in favor of combating terrorism and protecting homeland security. Justice officials dispute those contentions and pointed yesterday to an ongoing study designed to identify solutions to the rise in violent crime.

Bush has not retreated from fighting crime in favor of combatting terrorism. He's retreated from fighting traditional crime in favor of burnishing the Republicans' national security image and kicking back taxpayer money to his cronies. We are not safer from terrorism and our entire society is starting to fray around the edges because of inattention to fundamentals, resulting in wage stagnation, health care insecurity, higher crime, crumbling infrastructure, a broken military and failing education.

The Iraq money pit has made things worse for everyone --- Iraqis and Americans alike. None of us can afford an escalation of this surreal pony war.



.
digby 12/19/2006 03:48:00 PM |

 
Incoherence

by tristero

A prime example of the deplorable condition of our public intellectual discourse. In truth, it is an almost completely incoherent essay, but I think Orlando's arguing that because Bush misunderstood John Locke, liberal naivete is the root cause for the fiasco of Bush/Iraq. Like I said, it's incoherent.

Patterson's first sentence seems pretty clear:

One of the more disquieting aspects of the Iraqi occupation is that the president’s final rationale for it is a cherished, though groundless, liberal belief about freedom.

So Bush/Iraq was a bad idea because it was based on a groundless liberal belief about freedom, says Patterson. The belief, being groundless, is the problem.

But not so fast. In the third paragraph, Patterson writes:

Once President Bush was beguiled by this argument he began to sound like a late-blooming schoolboy who had just discovered John Locke, the 17th-century founder of liberalism.

Huh? Suddenly, it doesn't matter whether the idea was groundless or an indisputable fact. More important is that Bush's understanding of Locke - ie, liberal notions of freedom - is that of a late-blooming schoolboy, ie, someone without a deep understanding.

In other words, Patterson can't make up his mind. Is the problem the groundless liberal belief about freedom, or is the problem that Bush acted on a shallow understanding of what the liberal belief about freedom is? But one thing Patterson tries to make clear: the fiasco of Bush/Iraq is the fault of liberal thinking. Properly understood or poorly, it doesn't make a difference when it comes to liberal belief.

Liberals' "cherished" belief about freedom is groundless, he says up front. And Patterson goes out of his way to drive the naivete of liberals home. They might call themselves "neo-conservatives," but Patterson knows they are really "neo-liberals."

And so this bizarre essay is really only comprehensible as an exorcism.* As Digby has pointed out on numerous occasions, conservatism can never be wrong, liberalism can never be right. Therefore, if people calling themselves "conservative" (neo, or whatever) are wrong, then they cannot be, in reality, conservatives but misnamed liberals. Once we see that they are not "real" conservatives, they can easily be condemned and conservatism's infallibility is preserved.

But wait, there's more! Orlando moves so fast he's slipped one heckuva strawman past the readers of the Times. And that is the liberal belief about freedom that is at the core of his confused argument, namely

... the doctrine that freedom is a natural part of the human condition.

Nowhere does he provide a quote from what he calls the "liberal past" from any liberal actually believed that. He depends upon our half-remembering Rousseau, Locke, the Enlightenment gang - surely, we assume, one of them said, somewhere or another that freedom is a natural part of the human condition. So Orlando can't be bothered to tell us exactly where.

And that is for a very good reason. Orlando's description of the liberal "doctrine" of freedom as a natural condition is a grotesque distortion. Perhaps somewhere Locke actually said exactly that, but Orlando's ripped it from context, and oversimplified the idea, making it appear self-evidently naive and foolish. It is easy to swat away.

What's not so easy, and Orlando knows it which why they go unmentioned, is to argue against the real words of Locke regarding man's natural rights to life, liberty, and property, words which are echoed in the Declaration of Independence. Words which I, being an American, think are rather wise, and not naive. I have no problem asserting them as universal rights for human beings. However, the leap from that to overthrowing Saddam Hussein makes the famous jump cut in 2001 from the apes to the spaceship look like a mere blip. It does not follow that because life, liberty, property, therefore invade and conquer a country that is not a threat and that you know nothing about.

And it certainly doesn't follow, as Orlando says it does, that

...because freedom is instinctively “written in the hearts” of all peoples, all that is required for its spontaneous flowering in a country that has known only tyranny is the forceful removal of the tyrant and his party.

And I'd be very curious to know where Locke says this.

Speaking of Locke, calling him, as Orlando does, the "the 17th-century founder of liberalism" is a little like calling (the 18th century) Weber the inventor of opera. It is so over-simplified that doesn't enlighten, except about the blithering ignorance of the person who talks like that. Both, of course, were enormously influential in their respective fields. But Weber didn't invent opera, and Locke certainly didn't found liberalism.

No, Orlando, the problem of Bush/Iraq wasn't a naive liberalism. Nor was it a callow president misunderstanding the liberal founder, Locke. It was stupid, ignornant, malicious people in thrall with an ultra-conservative, fascist ideology that perpetrated Bush/Iraq. It was a terrible idea and only terrible people would act on it. Their worldview - marinated in a foul imperialistic manicheism - is uttlerly illiberal.

The incoherence and disortions noted above in Orlando's op-ed are inexcuasable. He, like so many others who are now making the case for the "liberal" failure o George W. Bush are just clowning around. For in truth, a genuinely useful American intellectual discourse begins with what Orlando tries to exorcise - the articulation of a 21st century liberalism. One more sleazy attempt to blame liberalism for the obscene, forseeable failures of the conservative movement is the last thing we need.

*I'll leave for you folks the second half. Honestly, I can't understand it. It seems predicated on the same simplistic, and wrong, notions of the terms "freedom" and "liberty" as the first part. But like I said, I have no idea what his point is other than we, the free, will prevail over the unfree Chinese. And for this they pay him the big bucks?

tristero 12/19/2006 11:52:00 AM |

 
Scarlet Barcode

by digby

I've been thinking a lot lately about how the busybody culture seems to be on the uptick. It's not just the Schiavo stuff, which is the worst of it in that it featured the president himself flying back to Washington in the dead of night to sign special legislation. It's more than that and it has to do with the religious right,corporations and government all working together (and sometimes using modern technology) to regulate personal behavior. I no like.

You have moral scolds and personal responsibility hypocrites and authoritarians and rapacious business interests that are determined, for a variety of reasons, to erase the idea of personal privacy on the one hand and the idea of redemption and reinvention on the other. Combined with a breathlessly intrusive tabloid media (dripping with hypocrisy and phony sanctimony) and you have a recipe for some very unpleasant social changes.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

The collateral consequences for people with criminal convictions are already severe. One misdemeanor can significantly diminish or outright ruin your chances for various types of employment, housing, financial aid, higher education, and licensing (not to mention its potential immigration consequences). These collateral effects of criminal convictions --- most severe for people being released from prison --- disproportionately harm the poor, creating a miserable cycle that makes it even more difficult for people in economically and educationally depressed communities to better their circumstances.

To make matters even worse, the FBI now wants to go beyond tracking "severe and/or significant offenses" (felonies and significant misdemeanors) and include on criminal history reports (accessed by employers and licensing agencies) "non-serious offenses" - from drinking in public to teenage vagrancy, traffic violations to urinating in public, loitering to disorderly conduct. As Michelle Chen observes in the New Standard, this "would foreclose employment opportunities for an untold number of people, disproportionately impact people of color, and invite the abuse of sensitive information."

The majority of employers will not hire someone with an arrest or "infraction" history, and even the most meaningless of follies will cause heightened scrutiny of the applicant. Any negative information, no matter how minor or long ago, will inevitably be prejudicial towards the applicant. Compound the stigma of even a non-criminal record with the fact that numerous state and federal laws have made it increasingly easy for employers to perform invasive background checks, and soon people's lives could be negatively impacted by the revelation of even the most minor indiscretions.

Additionally alarming is the fact that these vast criminal records databases are riddled with mistakes or incomplete --- half the arrest records do not contain the outcome of the cases (i.e., dismissal, acquittal, the District Attorney's Office declined to prosecute, etc.). Not only does the FBI want to allow even greater invasions of our private lives, but such incursions would sometimes uncover false and misleading information --- but damaging nonetheless.

Like the bankruptcy bill or these "shaming sentences" this is part of the zero tolerance culture that we see emerging in the courts and elsewhere, where we have ritual public humiliations designed to "send a message" and where people can never escape the mistakes of their youths. This allows the powerful and the sanctimonious to indulge in the fiction that they are morally superior by forcing others to pay both publicly and forever. A zero tolerance society turns into a paranoid society very quickly.

Here's the thing. I'm not big on American exceptionalism as a rule. But if there's anything about American culture that makes it unique it is the idea of second chances. After all, the colony and then the nation was settled by refugees and opportunists, petty criminals, fortune hunters and losers who were looking for a chance to start over again. It's who we are.

I'll evoke the usual suspect here, even though it's an unbearable cliche, because it happens to be true:

“Born often under another sky, placed in the middle of an always moving scene, himself driven by the irresistible torrent which draws all about him, the American has no time to tie himself to anything, he grows accustomed only to change, and ends by regarding it as the natural state of man. He feels the need of it, more he loves it; for the instability; instead of meaning disaster to him, seems to give birth only to miracles all about him.”

There's a lot about that to quarrel with, but I believe it is intrinsic to our success as a nation, whether its the willingness to take risks and create a dynamic, vibrant economy or our ability to come back after having made mistakes and create art and music and technology --- or just a decent life for ourselves and our families. When you strip it down to fundamentals, it's what makes progress possible.

But this new propensity among our institutions to track your every movement and keep secret lists with your data and share it amongst themselves is likely to stifle all that creativity and energy and turn us into a paranoid, withdrawn, insecure culture where one mistake can mean the end of everything. There can be no vibrant capitalism where you cannot afford to take risks. There can be no growth or knowledge or invention if you must watch your every step and know that no matter how trivial your misstep or whether you pay your debt to society, you will always be subject to social, economic and governmental disapprobation.

Every day I hear conservatives talk about freedom and liberty. And every day I see their institutions conspiring (sometimes with the help of well meaning, but misguided liberals) to erode the foundation upon which liberty is built. Of course people must behave responsibly and lawfully. A civil society depends upon us all agreeing to follow its rules. But humans are only human and they make mistakes. If we begin to use this powerful technology to ensure that there is no statute of limitations on life lessons and errors, everyone who doesn't have the means to game the system will be wearing a scarlet barcode on their foreheads. Because, (I know you'vve heard this before somewhere) nobody's perfect.



.
digby 12/19/2006 11:51:00 AM |

Monday, December 18, 2006

 
Dick or Peter?

by digby

Remember how our president used to say this stuff all the time?

It's not the kind of war that we're used to in America. The Greatest Generation was used to storming beachheads. Baby boomers such as myself, were used to getting caught in a quagmire of Vietnam where politics made decisions more than the military sometimes. Generation X was able to watch technology right in front of their TV screens -- you know, burrow into concrete bunkers in Iraq and blow them up.

And this:

I learned some good lessons from Vietnam. First, there must be a clear mission. Secondly, the politics ought to stay out of fighting a war. There was too much politics during the Vietnam War. There was too much concern in the White House about political standing. And I've got great confidence in General Tommy Franks, and great confidence in how this war is being conducted. And I rely on Tommy, just like the Secretary of Defense relies upon Tommy and his judgment -- whether or not we ought to deploy and how we ought to deploy.

What's he gonna do now?

The Bush administration is split over the idea of a surge in troops to Iraq, with White House officials aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, according to U.S. officials familiar with the intense debate.

I think he wants to escalate so badly he can taste it. Fred Barnes says:

It turns out you only have to attend a White House Christmas party to find out where President Bush is headed on Iraq. One guest who shook hands with Bush in the receiving line told him, "Don't let the bastards get you down." Bush, slightly startled but cheerful, replied, "Don't worry. I'm not." The guest followed up: "I think we can win in Iraq." The president's reply was emphatic: "We're going to win." Another guest informed Bush he'd given some advice to the Iraq Study Group, and said its report should be ignored. The president chuckled and said he'd made his position clear when he appeared with British prime minister Tony Blair. The report had never mentioned the possibility of American victory. Bush's goal in Iraq, he said at the photo-op with Blair, is "victory."

(Of course, Fred also thinks we were on the verge of a great victory in Vietnam in 1974 until the congressional hippies cut off the funds so I think he may have had a bit too much of the eggnog.)

This should be very, very interesting. Rummy's gone. What are the Joint Chiefs going to do?


.
digby 12/18/2006 09:55:00 PM |

 
Brownback Mountain

by digby

You cannot make this stuff up:

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, who blocked the confirmation of a woman to the federal bench because she attended a same-sex commitment ceremony for the daughter of her long-time neighbors, says he will now allow a vote on the nomination.

[...]

Mr. Brownback, who has been criticized for blocking the nomination, said he would also no longer press a proposed solution he offered on Dec. 8 that garnered even more criticism: that he would remove his block if Judge Neff agreed to recuse herself from all cases involving same-sex unions.

In an interview last week, Mr. Brownback said that he still believed Judge Neff’s behavior raised serious questions about her impartiality and that he was likely to vote against her. But he said he did not realize his proposal — asking a nominee to agree in advance to remove herself from deciding a whole category of cases — was so unusual as to be possibly unprecedented. Legal scholars said it raised constitutional questions of separation of powers for a senator to demand that a judge commit to behavior on the bench in exchange for a vote.

Mr. Brownback said that he believed Judge Neff’s attendance at the 2002 ceremony merited further investigation, but that he had not meant to set any precedent with his proposal. “It was the last day of the session and I was just trying to provide some accommodation to see if we could make this thing go forward,” he said.

He said that “this is a big hot-button issue” and that Judge Neff had not made it clear that her presence at the ceremony did not mean she could not rule without bias in deciding cases involving same-sex unions. “I’d like to know more factually about what took place,” he said

I'll bet he would. Was it two women or two men? How were they dressed? Did they kiss a the alter? Tongues?

This, by the way is the same guy who's involved in one of the freakiest sideshow cults in DC:

Brownback is also reticent about his membership in The Family, a shadowy Christian-right group comprising all-male elites. Some of its most famous members have included Watergate crook Charles Colson, South Carolina Senator Jim DeMint and the brutal Somalian former dictator, Mohammed Siad Barre. "The goal [of The Family] is an "invisible" world organization led by Christ--that's what they aspire to," Jeff Sharlet, a journalist who revealed The Family's inner workings in Harper's Magazine, said in an interview with Alternet.

Read all about it.


.
digby 12/18/2006 09:26:00 PM |

 
As The Kewl Kidz Turn

by digby

I can understand the press being interested in the idea of what Bill Clinton's role would be in a Hillary Clinton white house. It makes sense. There's never before been a case where an ex-president might be married to a current one. But someone becoming president eight years after a close family member left the white house isn't exactly unprecedented now is it, so it's not so freakish that we can't imagine it. In fact, one could even say that it was once considered a benefit --- all that wise counsel from "grown-ups" and all.

Never the less, I would expect that the political world would be particularly interested in how Bill and Hillary might conduct themselves in this situation because they have always been partners and because Hillary would be the first woman president. One could imagine a line of inquiry that wonders if Bill would really be in charge or if Hillary would be considered more "viable" among men because she has an experienced man backing her up right in the white house.

What one shouldn't have to imagine is stuff like this:

But there will be questions aplenty. How could there not be? The Clinton marriage fell into political soap opera with the troubles of Bill's White House years, with nothing but question marks hovering overhead, for a time. Was he contrite? Had she forgiven him? Would she stay? The woman whose earlier assertiveness as first lady rankled some now was tagged with a new set of labels: Hillary the martyr. Hillary the steadfast, for sticking with her man. Hillary as Machiavelli, accepting marital humiliation as the price of power.

The whole article is so sickening I can't even bear to deconstruct it.

This is not serious political journalism. The only people who really care about this garbage are the superficial morons who inhabit the DC media claque and the gossipy, pitchfork wielding denizens of "the town" who are, apparently, as substantial as cotton candy.

But what is truly insidious about this is something else. This is the press announcing that they have decided what the narrative should be and it is clearly designed to make people shudder with revulsion at the prospect of having to put up with more of this nonsense for another presidency. One of my good friends said to me at dinner last night that she was already exhausted at the prospect of this whole thing --- not because she cares about what Bill and Hill do in their personal lives, but because the DC tabloid political media are going to force it on her.

I am not carrying a brief for Hillary and I don't have an opinion on whether she should run. What I strenuously object to is the idea that the press is going to decide this for us by shoving their sick obsession with the Clinton's marriage and sex life down our throats whether we care about it or not. The whole damned world seems to be on the verge of exploding --- nobody's interested in explosions in any politician's pants at the moment.

These gossipy harpies are apparently determined that the nation will not have Hillary Clinton as president. Some of you may be glad about that and are cheering them on. But be advised -- they don't really want ANY Democrat to be president and they will create some demeaning narrative for each of them. They just have a particular score to settle with the Clintons --- and the narratives already been written so it's first out of the box.

Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe they'll fall in love with a Dem this time and treat him with the kid gloves with which they treated Bush in 2000 --- he was just a good ole MBA cowpoke from Midland and Kennebunkport who was gonna be decent and honorable and wear a big white hat just like in the movies. Maybe we'll get lucky and they'll decide that John Edwards is their guy this time. Or Obama. Or Chris Dodd. And maybe they'll skew the coverage our way and find some repellant narrative about the Republican that will ensure us a victory. That would be great. We'll probably win.

But you know, I think it would be a really neat change of pace if the American people got to pick their own president this time. I'm afraid I'm not all that satisfied with who the media and "the townfolk" have chosen for us these last few years. (Their record of Democratic candidate destruction, however, is truly impressive.)

The pundit and kewl kidz primary in which they put us on notice as to which candidates they plan to destroy so we won't go near them isn't anticipated in the constitution. If you hate Hillary, that's your privilege and it's also your privilege to decide if she should be president. I don't think it's good for our politics to let the kewl kidz take that privilege away from us.


.
digby 12/18/2006 06:54:00 PM |

 
Doomed To Repeat It

by digby

A lot of people are talking about this call by Juan Cole for Bush to fire Elliot Abrams, and for very good reason. It's a great idea, but since it took six years for him to dump Don Rumsfeld, I'm not holding my breath.

What caught my eye in his post outlining Abrams' long history of crime and perfidy, though, was this:

In 1991, Abrams pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts of lying to Congress under oath. Without the plea deal, he was facing felony charges, since what he did was in fact a felony.

Congress pledged that Abrams would never work at a high level in government again. But by the time the Neoconservative cabal in the Bush administration got Bush to appoint him to the National Security Council, there had been so much turn-over in Congress that, one member told me, "no one remembered who Abrams was."

Please, someone, tell me this isn't true. Elliot Abrahams was one of the most evil members of the Reagan administration. He was pardoned by poppy on Christmas eve 1992, just before he left office. He was notorious, infamous.

Unless Democratic staffers and members are all under the age of 40, there is absolutely no reason for them not to have already known who Elliot Abrams was. In any case, their job is to look into the president's appointees and had anyone done that they would have seen that they were going to be allowing a war criminal back into the government. Then again, he's just one of many in this administration (that has created a whole new generation of war criminals themselves), so perhaps they just thought that was a prerequisite for the job.

Abrams, unsurprisingly, is back to his old tricks. He's a very, very bad man and should not ever have been let anywhere near government power again. But he's one of those awesome Republican "grown-ups" the kewl kids were just thrilled to have back in Washington. I hope they are really enjoying those cocktail weenies.


.
digby 12/18/2006 01:22:00 PM |

 
S'cuse Us, Yer Highness

by digby

Considering that I've been writing about aristocracy a lot these days, this is actually kind of amusing:

To: The Honourable Senator Olympia Snowe (Republican, Maine) The Honourable Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)

Madame, Sir,

Uphold Free Speech About Climate Change Or Resign

The US Constitution guarantees the right of free speech. It is inappropriate for elected Senators such as yourselves to suggest that any person should refrain from exercising that right, as you have done in your letter of October 27 to the CEO of ExxonMobil. That great corporation has exercised its right of free speech -- and with good reason -- in openly providing support for scientists and groups that dare to question how much the increased concentration of CO2 in the air may warm the world. You must honour the Constitution, withdraw your letter and apologize to ExxonMobil, or resign as Senators.

You defy every tenet of democracy when you invite ExxonMobil to deny itself the right to provide information to "senior elected and appointed government officials" who disagree with your opinion. You are elected officials yourselves. If you do not believe in the right of persons within the United States to exercise their fundamental right under the world's greatest Constitution to petition their elected representatives for the redress of their grievances, then you have no place on Capitol Hill. You must go.

[...]

You will rightly deduce from Beckett's sinister remark that after a decade of Socialist government freedom of speech does not figure in our constitution. But let me quote the First Amendment to yours: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I call upon the pair of you to live by those great words, or to leave.

Yours truly,

MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

One does feel the sting of the whip more keenly when it comes from one's betters, doesn't one? But this is no joke. It is a letter written by a real Viscount Mockton of Brenchley to two US Senators.

The story is related to my aristocrat series not just because some slice of irrelevant peerage decides to lecture US citizens in the tone of Henry the VIII, but because it is another example of big, big money financing their pet conservative causes by creating bogus think tanks and "institutes." It's just a little bit unusual that they have put an actual aristocrat up front. The aristocrat, however, has a long conservative political and journalistic history and currently "acts as trouble-shooter and corporate thinker to leading businesses." (The first viscount Monckton was Chairman of the Iraq Petroleum Company.)

Lord Monckton is an ardent global warming science foe who recently published an exhaustive 52 page roll of toilet paper on the subject for The Telegraph. (George Monbiot explains the whole thing in this article in the Guardian.)He has no degree in any scientific subject and has never done any work in the field. Lately, he's best known for his (admittedly impressive)jigsaw puzzle design. But he styles himself an expert, writes nonsensical papers and then demands the resignations of anyone who disagrees with him. I think there was more intellectual rigor involved in Galileo's trial.

But this is how it works. I find it amusing that Exxon has actually engaged a real blueblood to make its dishonest pitch, but maybe they are getting desperate. They aren't even trying to hide it.



.
digby 12/18/2006 12:06:00 PM |

 
Breaking Away

by digby

I think everyone knows I'm a godless hippie and all, but I am fascinated by the subjects of politics and history so naturally I find myself constantly reading about religion. It's all related.

So this story by Bruce Wilson at Talk to Action about the Episcopalian break-away over gay rights piques my interest:

Yesterday, seven Virginia Episcopal churches including two of the largest and wealthiest in the American Episcopal Communion voted to break away and, as a New York Times story written prior to the vote put it, "report to the powerful archbishop of Nigeria, Peter Akinola, an outspoken opponent of homosexuality who supports legislation in his country that would make it illegal for gay men and lesbians to form organizations, read gay literature or eat together in a restaurant." " Commentor Jim Naughton, who writes the "Daily Episcopalian", noted "this no longer seems to be a debate about the proper role of gay and lesbians Christians in the Church, but about the moral legitimacy of rolling back human rights for minorities"...

It doesn't get more political than that. But this highlights something that's going on in the world of religion that I don't think most people are aware of: the right is systematically attacking the liberal churches from within.

For instance, it so happens that the ever so mainline Episcopal church has been under assault from big money wingnuts for some time. This article by Max Blumenthal in Salon from 2004 reveals this pet project of rightwing freakshow Howard Ahmanson:

In the summer of 2000, a group of frustrated Episcopalians from the board of the American Anglican Council gathered at a sun-soaked Bahamanian resort to blow off some steam and hatch a plot. They were fed up with the Episcopal Church and what they perceived as a liberal hierarchy that had led it astray from centuries of so-called orthodox Christian teaching. The only option, they believed, was to lead a schism.

But this would take money. After the meeting, Anglican Council vice president Bruce Chapman sent a private memo to the group's board detailing a plan to involve Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a Southern California millionaire, and his wife, Roberta Green Ahmanson, in the plan. "Fundraising is a critical topic," Chapman wrote. "But that topic itself is going to be affected directly by whether we have a clear, compelling forward strategy. I know that the Ahmansons are only going to be available to us if we have such a strategy and I think it would be wise to involve them directly in settling on it as the options clarify." It was a logical pitch: As a key financier of the Christian right with a penchant for anti-gay campaigns, Ahmanson clearly shared the Anglican Council's interest in subverting the left-leaning church. Moreover, Ahmanson and his wife were close friends and prayer partners of David Anderson, the Anglican Council's chief executive, while Chapman and his political team were already enjoying hefty annual grants from Ahmanson to Chapman's think tank, the Discovery Institute.

Are we getting the picture?

The institute is directed by Diane Knippers, an evangelical Episcopalian and writer who also happens to be a founding member of the Anglican Council and its acting executive director. She is the chief architect of the institute's Reforming America's Churches Project, which aims to "restructure the permanent governing structure" of "theologically flawed" mainline churches like the Episcopal Church in order to "discredit and diminish the Religious Left's influence." This has translated into a three-pronged assault on mainline Presbyterian, Methodist and Episcopal churches. With a staff of media-savvy research specialists, the institute is able to ply both the religious and mainstream media, exploiting divisive social issues within the churches.

[...]

The campaign against the Episcopal Church climaxed on Aug. 5 last year, just a day before the Rt. Rev. Eugene Robinson was scheduled to be elected as the church's first openly gay bishop. In a column titled "The Gay Bishop's Links," Weekly Standard editor and Institute board member Fred Barnes alleged that the Web site of a gay youth group Robinson founded contained links to "a pornographic website." Further, Barnes alleged, Robinson "put his hands on" a Vermont man "inappropriately" during a church meeting "several years ago." The institute shopped the column to various cable news networks but only Fox News broadcast it. Barnes did not return calls seeking comment.

Though Barnes' smear was discredited by a panel of bishops investigating the charges, it helped widen the rift within the Episcopal Church and isolate it from its global affiliates. Since Robinson's Nov. 2 consecration, 13 dioceses affiliated with the Anglican Council have threatened to break with the Episcopal Church and form a renegade network. Though the network has yet to congeal, the momentum for a full-blown split continues to build. And the Nigerian and Southeast Asian churches, which, like the Episcopal Church, belong to the global Anglican Communion, have broken off contact with the Episcopal Church.

Once again you see the nexus between big right wing money, media and power --- and not just in government, but all aspects of society. (I will talk about Wal-Mart's stated desire to export its "culture" another time.) I'm not sure that there is anything the right does that is a true grassroots effort. When you peel away the layers you always find the same people spending a huge amount of money to buy off the leadership and brainwash the folks. Every time. Why, if I didn't know better, I'd think a bunch of rich white people were looking to perpetuate an aristocracy.


And in other religious news, here's a story in the NY Times today that just floored me:

Before David Paszkiewicz got to teach his accelerated 11th-grade history class about the United States Constitution this fall, he was accused of violating it.

Shortly after school began in September, the teacher told his sixth-period students at Kearny High School that evolution and the Big Bang were not scientific, that dinosaurs were aboard Noah’s ark, and that only Christians had a place in heaven, according to audio recordings made by a student whose family is now considering a lawsuit claiming Mr. Paszkiewicz broke the church-state boundary.

“If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong,” Mr. Paszkiewicz was recorded saying of Jesus. “He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell.”

The student, Matthew LaClair, said that he felt uncomfortable with Mr. Paszkiewicz’s statements in the first week, and taped eight classes starting Sept. 13 out of fear that officials would not believe the teacher had made the comments.

[...]

Greice Coelho, who took Mr. Paszkiewicz’s class and is a member of his youth group, said in a letter to The Observer, the local weekly newspaper, that Matthew was “ignoring the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which gives every citizen the freedom of religion.” Some anonymous posters on the town’s electronic bulletin board, Kearnyontheweb.com, called for Matthew’s suspension.

On the sidewalks outside the high school, which has 1,750 students, many agreed with 15-year-old Kyle Durkin, who said, “I’m on the teacher’s side all the way.”

While science teachers, particularly in the Bible Belt, have been known to refuse to teach evolution, the controversy here, 10 miles west of Manhattan, hinges on assertions Mr. Paszkiewicz made in class, including how a specific Muslim girl would go to hell.

“This is extremely rare for a teacher to get this blatantly evangelical,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a nonprofit educational association. “He’s really out there proselytizing, trying to convert students to his faith, and I think that that’s more than just saying I have some academic freedom right to talk about the Bible’s view of creation as well as evolution.”

Even some legal organizations that often champion the expression of religious beliefs are hesitant to support Mr. Paszkiewicz.

“It’s proselytizing, and the courts have been pretty clear you can’t do that,” said John W. Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, a group that provides legal services in religious freedom cases. “You can’t step across the line and proselytize, and that’s what he’s done here.”

[...]

...Andrew Lewczuk, a former student of Mr. Paszkiewicz, praised his abilities as a history teacher but said he regretted that he had not protested the religious discussions. “In the end, the manner in which Mr. Paszkiewicz spoke with his students was careless, inconsiderate and inappropriate,” he wrote to The Observer. “It was an abuse of power and influence, and it’s my own fault that I didn’t do anything about this.”

One teacher, who did not give his name, said he thought both Matthew and his teacher had done the right thing. “The student had the right to do what he did,” the man said. As for Mr. Paszkiewicz, “He had the right to say what he said, he was not preaching, and that’s something I’m very much against.”

Where to begin? That last comment alone is stunning coming from a "teacher." The man is recorded saying in a public school:

“If you reject his gift of salvation, then you know where you belong. He did everything in his power to make sure that you could go to heaven, so much so that he took your sins on his own body, suffered your pains for you, and he’s saying, ‘Please, accept me, believe.’ If you reject that, you belong in hell,”

If that's not preaching, I can't imagine what goes on in that man's church. Clearly, this is completely unacceptable; even John Whitehead says so and he's a raving. religious wingnut.

There are many things about this that are disturbing, of course --- the fact that nobody said anything before this kid --- the fact that everyone in the community seems to think this is just fine. But I think one of the things that disturbs me the most is that this guy is teaching the class that evolution is not scientific and that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's ark. Dinosaurs were aboard Noah's Ark. In a high school history class. And everybody is saying what a good teacher he is.

Am I nuts or have people become so religiously correct that they can't say that a man who teaches his students that dinosaurs were aboard Noah's Ark cannot, by definition, be a good history teacher?

Still, the kid has a lot of guts and he sounds like he's tough enough to take all this. That's not true of a lot of other kids who aren't as temperamentally defiant and who will sit through that sermon and even participate just to fit in socially or get a good grade even though it goes against their own religious teachings (or their own knowledge that it has no basis in fact.) These kids are trapped in a church that's being run by the government and that's unconstitutional.

Still, even though Matthew is a bright kid who will do just fine, you have to feel a little bit sorry for him. High school is a terrible place even for the popular:

Matthew said he missed the friends he had lost over his role in the debate, and said he could “feel the glares” when he walked into school.

Instead of mulling Supreme Court precedents, he said with half a smile, “I should be worrying about who I’m going to take to the prom.”

It will be a girl with exceptionally good judgment and courage who agrees to go with him.



.
digby 12/18/2006 09:38:00 AM |

 

Raise My Taxes

by poputonian

The latest online from In These Times:

We Are All Waiters Now

By Thomas Geoghegan

Now that the Democrats run Congress, the question becomes, "What should they do?" Yes, raise the minimum wage. And yes, fix the Medicare drug program. But will this bind a new majority to the party? We're often told, "Democrats have no ideas." But that's a silly thing to say. Washington, D.C., is crawling with foundation-types bubbling with new ideas, and if anything, the Democrats are awash with new ideas. Many of these new ideas may make their way into law. And we need not have the cynicism of Mario Cuomo, who once said, "In America, a new idea is a cereal that grows hair." But what the Democrats don't have is a serious commitment--the political nerve--to make people happier in the only way they can: by raising people's taxes. How happy more of us would be if only we could pay higher taxes! More of us at last could joyfully retire. In May 2005, the Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) put out a sort of Michelin Guide to the pensions of the world's 30 wealthiest nations: the United States, Ireland and their ilk. While the United States is rich, comparatively it's a beggar at the bottom, with a…

Read the entire article if you want to find happiness.

poputonian 12/18/2006 04:18:00 AM |

Sunday, December 17, 2006

 
Old Times There Are Not Forgotten

by digby

Hey folks. I'm hosting Tom Schaller and his new book Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South over at the FDL book salon this afternoon. Come join us for the fireworks.

Cross posted at FDL:

It seems as if I've been thinking about southern politics all of my life. The truth is that since the founding, everyone who has ever been involved in American politics has thought about it their whole lives. The struggle over politics and culture and regional pride in the south is America's story --- it is us and we are it, no matter where we live.

The day after the 2004 election we all looked at the electoral map and knew that we were now dealing with a rock solid Republican south. The realignment that had been in the works since the 1960's was complete. (In fact it was almost exactly the same electoral map of 1860, with the parties reversed.) The south has pretty much voted as a bloc from the very beginning. And it is also a fact that the south is the most conservative region in the country, always has been. (Even FDR had to agree to keep civil rights off the menu --- and once the crisis of the depression passed, the Dixiecrats immediately got restless. That coalition forged in the depression was always on a collision course with itself.)

In his book Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South Tom Schaller gathers all the data to prove what those maps imply --- the south is conservative in ways that the Democrats cannot crack without offending its other constituents or losing its progressive identity, which is exactly what's been happening since 1992 when Clinton made a last charge through Dixie and barely managed to get 43% of the national popular vote. In this article by Schaller in The Democratic Strategist, you can see that the statistics tell the story. By all measures of gender,age, religion, family/marital status, occupation and socioeconomic status, the demographics strongly favor conservative Republicanism in the south for the foreseeable future.
And more strikingly, it's quite clear that as much as attitudes about race are losing their salience in the rest of the country, it remains a strong predictor of voting Republican in the south. From Rick Perlstein's article called "The unspoken truth about the GOP. Southern Discomfort" in The New Republic:

The very heart of his argument is a taboo notion: that the South votes Republican because the Republicans have perfected their appeal to Southern racism, and that Democrats simply can't (and shouldn't) compete.

But, among scholars, this is hardly news. Schaller builds this conclusion on one of the most impressive papers in recent political science, "Old Times There Are Not Forgotten: Race and Partisan Realignment in the Contemporary South," by Nicholas Valentino and David Sears. Running regressions on a massive data set of ideological opinions, Sears and Valentino demonstrate with precision that, for example, a white Southern man who calls himself a "conservative," controlling for racial attitudes, is no less likely to chance a vote for a Democratic presidential candidate than a Northerner who calls himself a conservative. Likewise, a pro-life or hawkish Southern white man is no less likely--again controlling for racial attitudes--than a pro-life or hawkish Northerner to vote for the Democrat. But, on the other hand, when the relevant identifier is anti-black answers to survey questions (such as whether one agrees "If blacks would only try harder, they could be just as well off as whites," or choosing whether blacks are "lazy" or "hardworking"), an untoward result jumps out: white Southerners are twice as likely than white Northerners to refuse to vote for the Democratic presidential candidate. Schaller's writes: "Despite the best efforts of Republican spinmeisters ... the partisan impact of racial attitudes in the South is stronger today than in the past."

I read the paper Perlstein mentions and this is not a misrepresentation. It shocked the hell out of me.

Now, before everyone gets upset and thinks that we are saying all southerners are racists: the data does not say that. But when it comes to conservative white southerners, I'm sorry to say that the evidence is clear. When all is said and done, the thing that separates them from the rest of the nation is racism. All the racial codes, the slick misdirection, even the appeals to homophobia and religion are in some sense directed at this one simple characteristic. And that characteristic is the thing that trumps all the other concerns about economic justice that Democrats persist in believing they can use to persuade white southern males to vote for them. Democrats simply cannot thread that needle.

Schaller does not "write off the south" as so many assume. Indeed, he explicitly endorses Howard Dean's 50 state strategy to build for the future and ensure that Democrats are prepared to step in where opportunities present themselves. What he is saying is it is impossible for Democrats to currently win nationally by trying to appeal to the southern conservative majority, which seems to me to be an obvious point. You can't be all things to all people.

Yet we have seen for decades now a concerted effort to persuade the Dems that they must appeal to NASCAR dads and "the heartland" and "evangelicals" and all the other cultural signifiers that relate closely to the conservative south. But that's not where the votes for us are and the more we try to get them, the less appealing we are to everyone else. As Schaller persuasively shows, there are plenty of votes to be had among blue collar workers in the upper mid-west and among the less traditionalist and religious types in the west and southwest. These appeals offer the possibility of emphasizing areas on which we agree instead of compromising on fundamental issues on which we never can. Schaller's "diamond demography" chapter shows exactly where the Dems stand the most to gain.

The fact is that it is the Republicans who have backed themselves into a corner. By allowing their southern wingnuts to dominate they have marginalized themselves and are losing their appeal to the country as a whole.


Here's Harold Myerson in the Washington Post:

You've seen the numbers and understand that America is growing steadily less white. You try to push your party, the Grand Old Party, ahead of this curve by taking a tolerant stance on immigration and making common cause with some black churches. Then you go and blow it all in a desperate attempt to turn out your base by demonizing immigrants and running racist ads against Harold Ford. On Election Day, black support for Democrats remains high; Hispanic support for Democrats surges. So what do you do next?

What else? Elect Trent Lott your deputy leader in the Senate. Sure locks in the support of any stray voters who went for Strom in '48.

In case you haven't noticed, a fundamental axiom of modern American politics has been altered in recent weeks. For four decades, it's been the Democrats who've had a Southern problem. Couldn't get any votes for their presidential candidates there; couldn't elect any senators, then any House members, then any dogcatchers. They still can't, but the Southern problem, it turns out, is really the Republicans'. They've become too Southern -- too suffused with the knee-jerk militaristic, anti-scientific, dogmatically religious, and culturally, sexually and racially phobic attitudes of Dixie -- to win friends and influence elections outside the South. Worse yet, they became more Southern still on Election Day last month, when the Democrats decimated the GOP in the North and West. Twenty-seven of the Democrats' 30 House pickups came outside the South.

The Democrats won control of five state legislatures, all outside the South, and took more than 300 state legislative seats away from Republicans, 93 percent of them outside the South...

The one strategist who fundamentally predicted the new geography of partisan American politics is Tom Schaller, a University of Maryland political scientist whose book "Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South" appeared several months before November's elections. Schaller argued that the Democrats' growth would occur in the Northeast, the industrial Midwest, the Mountain West and the Southwest -- areas where professionals, appalled by Republican Bible Beltery, were trending Democratic and where working-class whites voted their pocketbooks in a way that their Southern counterparts did not. Al Gore carried white voters outside the South, Schaller reminded us; even hapless John Kerry came close.


I would suggest that there are a couple of other reasons why Schaller's theory is sound, which he doesn't mention. While the party is listening to the likes of Amy Sullivan about how to compromise on abortion rights so as to appeal to conservative evangelicals, there is a resurgence of ideological progressivism throughout the country and we are not going to sit still for anybody running against us latte swilling liberals anymore. It would behoove the party to factor that into their calculations and see if they can find a way to properly respect their left flank while reaching out to swing voters.

I also suspect that the progressives in the south, with the help of the 50 state strategy, are going to begin to work harder than ever on that stubborn old region from the grassroots --- and netroots --- up. If they want us, we are here to help our southern brothers and sisters, many of them African American and our most loyal voters, to change that political dynamic once and for all. There's nothing that says just because the conservatives have ruled pretty much forever that they always will. Where there are candidates who want to run, even if it's a long shot, we will do what we can to help them just as we did this time --- and we'll be trainspotters for the national party to see where the soft spots are.

But the national party must forge an identity that makes sense, that conveys what we stand for and what our values are. And we cannot do that if we continue to try to split the difference on these culture war issues and tailor our message to some mythical southern white conservative whom we think will vote for us if only we wear the right clothes and carry a shot gun. The data shows that unless we start running "call me, Harold" ads, that isn't going to work on those guys. (And, btw, the southern conservative women vote pretty much the same way -- no gender gap in the south.) Until further notice, they are the southern majority. We'll do better in places where we can make a case based on economic populism and civil liberties that is untainted by a majority that are still too influenced by racism and fundamentalist religion to even meet us part of the way.

The proof is in the pudding. If Democrats can gain power we can begin to make a real case for progressivism in the south based upon progressive achievement.

(I do disagree with Schaller's belief that the Democrats could turn South Carolina into the "Taxachusetts" of the south --- meaning that we could use it as a symbol of being out of touch with the mainstream. I don't think it would work. That kind of thing works for the Republicans because they are exploiting an existing grievance among a group of right wingers who are perpetually aggrieved. Those guys have been railing against the yankees since before the country was even a country. It's peculiar to their own sense of regional pride.)

Now keep in mind that for every assertion I've made here, there are a hundred qualifiers and data points that Schaller's book addresses. He believes that the south will eventually become more progressive from the outside rim inwards, hence the win in Virgina. He sees Florida as a different kind of southern state and subject to a different analysis. There are many other fascinating details that only reading the book will fully satisfy.

I should also take the time to point out that it is an entertaining read for such a dry subject. Schaller spares no important data --- it's a work of scholarship. But it's written in the lively style that those of us who've been reading his posts at Daily Kos, the Gadflyer and TAPPED for the last few years have come to enjoy. It is a very breezy read for a work of social science.
digby 12/17/2006 02:02:00 PM |

 

Public Interest Versus Private Greed

by poputonian

A few posts ago, Hullabaloo regular llamajockey and I had a little sidebar about healthcare in Indiana. I was very pleased to hear that Michael Moore's latest work Sicko will be looking closely at two Indiana corporations: Eli Lilly and Anthem/Wellpoint. With regard to the history of Anthem/Wellpoint, the link below to the Consumers Union details how, in Indiana, two nonprofit corporations from the 1940s became the publicly-traded, for-profit Anthem, Inc., which itself would later become Wellpoint:

Conversion and Preservation of Charitable Assets of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Plans: How States Have Protected or Failed to Protect the Public Interest

Indiana Blue Cross and Indiana Blue Shield were created in the 1940s. In 1985, the two plans merged and changed their name to Associated Insurance Companies, Inc. In 1989, Associated created a wholly-owned subsidiary, Accordia, Inc., to handle insurance brokerage, claims administration, underwriting management and employee benefit consulting services. Associated conducted an initial public offering of Accordia stock in 1992 and in 1996, the name was changed to Anthem Insurance Companies. Anthem, a mutual insurance company, has purchased BCBS plans in Colorado, Connecticut, Kentucky, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire and Ohio.

In February 2001, Anthem announced its intention to convert from a mutual insurance company to a stock corporation ("demutualization"), and filed its demutualization plan with the Indiana Department of Insurance in June 2001. The plan deprived policyholders in Colorado, Maine, Nevada and New Hampshire of any right to receive shares in the new company whereas policyholders in Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, and Ohio were eligible. Consumer groups in all Anthem states (the eight already owned by Anthem along with soon to be acquired Kansas) concerned about the potential impact of this conversion on health care coverage, encouraged regulators in the Anthem states to review the transaction carefully and to impose conditions that would protect current and future policyholders. Despite this request of the multi-state coalition, only the Indiana Department of Insurance conducted a public hearing - as required by state law. The hearing was held in Indianapolis (Anthem's home base) in October 2001 and was quickly followed by the approval of the Indiana Insurance Commissioner. Subsequently, Anthem launched its IPO to become a publicly traded for-profit company.

So next came the obligatory attaboy (tongue-in-cheek) for Anthem CEO, Larry Glasscock and his helpers (yes, it really says merit pay):

Anthem Chief To Get Merit Pay Of $42.5 million

The top executive at Anthem Inc. will receive a $42.5 million stock-and-cash award for guiding the company as it became the state's largest firm and now stands to become the nation's largest health benefits company.

Larry C. Glasscock will receive the merit-based performance award over the next three years on top of his salary, bonus and other compensation of $3.73 million last year. It's the most compensation Glasscock has received since he became the company's chief executive in 1999 and helped convert it to a publicly traded concern in 2001.
...
The large cash-and-stock awards for Anthem executives -- based largely on the firm's profits from 2001 to 2003 -- are some of the biggest ever seen in corporate Indiana. The company reported net income of $743 million in 2003, up 41 percent from the previous year.

Award amounts of $16 million each went to Glasscock's two highest-ranking associates: executive vice presidents David R. Frick, an attorney and former Indianapolis deputy mayor, and Michael L. Smith, a former chief executive of moving company Mayflower Group.

In addition, the president of Anthem Midwest, Keith R. Faller, will get a stock-and-cash award of $11.9 million, while Anthem Southeast President Thomas G. Snead Jr. got $4.36 million.
...
If Anthem acquires WellPoint Health Networks of California this summer, as expected, Anthem will have grown during the past decade from a one-state, nonprofit Blue Cross-Blue Shield licensee to a public company that handles the health benefits of one of every 10 insured Americans.

Then, in 2003, Anthem indeed swallowed Wellpoint. Oligopoly Watch reported on those details:

Big Healthcare Merger

Indiana-based Anthem, one of the largest managed care companies in the US announced it will acquire California-based WellPoint Health Networks for about $16.4 billion (a cash and stock deal). The new company will operate under the WellPoint name but will have its headquarters in Indianapolis. In fact, Anthem is the smaller company. Anthem has a market capitalization of around $11 billion, while WellPoints's is around $12 billion.

According to the Wall Street Journal ("Anthem to Acquire WellPoint Health", 10/27/2003).

The transaction brings together two of the nation's largest providers of Blue Cross and Blue Shield plans, with about 26 million members. More importantly, it will transform the Blue Cross and Blue Shield name into a truly national brand for the first time. The Blue plans currently operate under license from a nonprofit association but are owned by different companies.
...
Both WellPoint and Anthem have a long history of acquisitions as they have grown from single-state Blue Cross/Blue Shield providers to major national managed care chains. While Blue Cross was once existed only as independent state programs, in recent years, there has been a frenzy of acquisitions as one after another has been snapped up by the larger managed care oligopolies.

WellPoint started in 1942 as the managed care of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of California.

*In 1996, WellPoint acquired the health insurance division of Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company.
*In 1997, that was followed by the group health division of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance.
*In 2000, it bought up PrecisionRx, a mail-order pharmacy, along with Rush Prudential Health Plans of Illinois
*In 2001, Cerulean Companies, Inc.-parent company of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Georgia.
*In 2002, WellPoint acquired RightChoice, the parent company of Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Missouri and of the Healthlink network. The company also acquired the MethodistCare HMO in Texas.
*WellPoint in August 2002 just completed acquiring Cobalt Corp. Cobalt was founded by the merger of Blue Cross & Blue Shield United of Wisconsin and United Wisconsin Services, Inc
...
The Anthem name was invented in 1997. In 2002, Anthem acquired Trigon Healthcare of Virginia for $4 billion. On the other hand, this August, it got a rebuff when its attempt to acquire Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kansas was ejected by the Kansas Supreme Court, citing competition reasons.

According to the WSJ, "The deal will be one of the year's largest mergers, and is likely to trigger other unions among providers of managed care.
...
Most analysts expect that things will not be so great for “members” or medical providers like doctors and hspitals. Anthem in particular has had a growing number of complaints about its prompt payment for treatments. As an oligonomy, these new healthcare giants can squeeze on both sides to make money, and they tend to squeeze hard. With headquarters remote from the people they serve and less competition all the time, the incentive for good service is slackening.

So how have the Anthem/Wellpoint executives fared post-merger?

Health Insurance CEOs Feast On Exec Pay

Executives at WellPoint have enjoyed a cornucopia of compensation in recent years.

The wealth came as the new WellPoint, headquartered on Monument Circle, was created from the $20.8 billion merger of Anthem of Indiana and WellPoint Health Networks of California.

Since then, 31 current and former WellPoint insiders have sold more than $500 million worth of company stock, according to insider trading data tracked by Thomson Financial. Those sales, along with exercising stock options, have given those insiders gains well in excess of $150 million.
...
WellPoint, which provides health insurance to more than 34 million people nationwide, says its executive compensation policies are designed to recruit and retain top talent in a competitive marketplace.

Company spokesman Jim Kappel said those executives help WellPoint in "delivering more benefit to its members than ever before while helping to hold down the rising costs of health care."

Delivering more benefits and holding down costs? For the residents of Indiana? Since the original BCBS public-interest, nonprofit charters were converted for private gain by self-interested sharks? Yes, says the Anthem-Wellpoint web-site (see the "About Us" tab):

Our mission is to improve the health of the people we serve. At Anthem, we believe the best health care coverage can actually help people stay healthy. That's why we go beyond simply providing health care coverage. We help encourage members' wellness by:

-Offering large networks of some of the region's best physicians, specialists and hospitals.
-Reminding members to have important preventive screenings.
-Providing programs and information to help manage chronic health conditions.
-Offering related services including dental coverage, life insurance and pharmacy benefits management.

We work with physicians, hospitals and other providers to help ensure that care is accessible, coordinated, timely and provided in a manner and setting that promotes positive patient-provider relationships.

But no, says today's Indianapolis Star:

More than a half-million Hoosiers have no health insurance, an uninsured rate among the highest in the nation. To make matters worse, compared with other states, we're not very healthy. Too many of us smoke, are overweight and lack childhood immunizations, with rates far above the national average. These lead to higher medical bills, for which you, the taxpayer, help pay.
...
Indiana's alarming health statistics
• 561,000: Hoosiers without health insurance on any given day.

• $953: additional amount each family with health insurance paid in premiums in 2005 to cover the uninsured.

• 10,200: children under 18 who start smoking each year.

• 160,000: children now under 18 who will die prematurely from smoking.

• Second: number of adult smokers compared with other states.

• 10th: percentage of adults who are overweight/obese.

• 22%: children do not receive requisite immunizations by their second birthday and lack immunization against preventable diseases.

You gotta love that invisible hand, working in mysterious ways to create private wealth out of the public good.

And who sits on the Wellpoint Board and has apparently enjoyed seven-figure gains from some of these private transactions? Susan Bayh, wife of Indiana Senator and former presidential hopeful, Evan Bayh.

Sicko indeed.

UPDATE: Commenter tofubo notes the President's uncle Bucky Bush is also on the Wellpoint Board.

poputonian 12/17/2006 09:06:00 AM |

Saturday, December 16, 2006

 
Saturday Night At The Movies

Undigested Haggis and a Tastier Alternative: Stereotyped in America

By Dennis Hartley

I’m going to risk crucifixion here and confess that I only recently got around to viewing Crash , Paul Haggis’ 2005 Oscar winning meditation on racism in America. (Perhaps I was shamed into screening it after Michael Richard’s recent little star turn on YouTube).

“Crash” takes the premise of 1993’s Falling Down and expands on it exponentially. Instead of one disenfranchised white guy going off the deep end and raging through L.A. blaming every person of color he encounters for his own personal failures, “Crash” serves up an Altman-sized, multicultural cast of self-pitying whiners running around L.A. pissed off at everybody else. They hail from all ethnic and socio-economic strata, they are all fuming about their (real or perceived) victimization by one societal injustice or another and (yeah, you guessed it) they are all on a ‘crash’ course, about to collide.

Structurally, “Crash” is a close cousin to PT Anderson’s (vastly superior) “Magnolia”, and operates on the same conceit. We are asked to accept an absurdly implausible series of “coincidences” in order for the story (or in this case, Today’s Lecture) to work.

The cast is talented, the performances are earnest and the film is slickly made, but the mind boggles as to how this condescending, contrived, PC-pandering mess earned a Best Picture Oscar. The Message (people are people and bigotry is colorblind) has been delivered numerous times before and with considerably more panache (see list below).

They don’t make ‘em like this anymore-honest, bold, uncompromising, socially and politically meaningful, yet (lest we forget) entertaining. The late Ashby only directed a relative handful of films, but most, especially his 70’s output, were built to last (Harold and Maude, The Last Detail, Bound for Glory,Shampoo, Being There). In The Landlord, Beau Bridges is a spoiled rich kid who worries his parents with his “liberal views”, especially when he buys a run-down inner-city tenement, with intentions to renovate. His subsequent involvement with the various black tenants is played sometimes for laughs, other times for intense drama, but always for real. The social satire and pointed observations about race relations are dead-on, but never preachy or condescending (are you listening, Paul Haggis?). Top-notch ensemble work, featuring a young Lou Gossett (with hair!) giving a memorable dramatic turn. The lovely Susan Anspach is hilarious as Bridge’s perpetually stoned and bemused sister. A scene featuring Pearl Bailey and Lee Grant getting drunk and bonding over a bottle of “sparkling” wine is a minor classic all on its own. Unfortunately, The Landlord remains the only Ashby film not on DVD (a crime!). It does pop up on cable, so check your listings, or your local independent video store may have a VHS copy for rent.

Can’t we all just get along? Try these: To Kill a Mockingbird, Nothing But a Man, In the Heat of the Night,Do The Right Thing, Grand Canyon, Dirty Pretty Things, and The Brother From Another Planet (it’s really an allegory-but you knew that!)


XMAS BONUS!

I know we just met recently and all, but, y’know, we’ve been talking movies for well past our, er, third review now, and uh (gosh this is awkward) y’know, I was kinda hoping you could, erm, trust me if I recommend some DVD stocking stuffers? (No theme here, just some great “off-Hollywood” flicks from my personal library)-DH

The Bad Sleep Well-Lesser-known Akira Kurosawa film (from 1960) that mixes Shakespearean intrigue with modern Japanese corporate politics and a dash of film noir.

Chan Is Missing-Outstanding 1982 indie debut for director Wayne Wang, filmed in SF’s Chinatown (on a shoestring!) Unique, keenly observed low-key cultural satire.

Dazed & Confused-Richard Linklater captures the bell-bottom and bong hit 70’s zeitgeist to a tee in the best “coming of age” period film since “American Graffitti”.

Free Enterprise-Pop culture geeks approach the dreaded age of 30 with trepidation and the sage advice of one William Shatner (playing himself!) Much smarter than it sounds.

The Loved One-Classic 1965 cult flick that finally made it to DVD in 2006. A black comedy extraordinaire co-scripted by Terry Southern; unbelievably surreal casting!

Me and You and Everyone We Know-Performance artist Miranda July’s 2005 directing debut is a daring, whimsical and sublime statement on the universal need to connect.

Nightmare Alley-Classic cult film noir from 1947 is the darkest of them all. Out of print for decades due to legal hassles-it finally reached DVD in 2005. Not to be missed!

Pow Wow Highway-Unusual Native-American road movie/spiritual quest/comedy-drama from 1989 that eschews stereotypes and made me a Gary Farmer fan for life.

The Quiet Earth-1985 cult sci-fi from New Zealand featuring the great Bruno Lawrence in a “last man on earth” scenario. Enigmatic wonder of the final scene will haunt you.

Rude Boy-This 1980 backstage pseudo-docudrama is not for all tastes, but it is a must for fans of the UK’s late great agitprop punkers The Clash-fantastic performance footage


Enjoy!


.
digby 12/16/2006 08:10:00 PM |

 
It's Important To Save The Frog

by digby

In keeping with the usual Saturday night at the movies here on Hullabaloo, I just watched An Inconvenient Truth and I am here to tell you that if you ever thought Al Gore was a boring has-been, this film will prove otherwise. It isn't that he's any less stiff or formal than he ever was. He's the same guy I always saw --- earnest, decent and human. But this film shows us a person who is doing something that so transcends any of the usual political and media calculations that he seems almost serene.

This film is so important. I saw it last summer and felt more moved than I have in years. This is a complicated and dangerous world and we are all overwhelmed by the challenges we face. Global warming may be the biggest and most challenging of all --- and yet it may present opportunities for us if we can recognize just how connected we are to other people by virtue of this planet we all share. The film is educational and illuminating but it also unexpectedly imbues you with an almost lightheaded feeling of hope.

Al Gore is really too good for politics. He's more like a prophet than a politician at this point. I almost don't want to see him enter the fray and take the disgusting offal they will throw at him. But I love the guy and if it happened I can't think of anyone who'd make a better president.

An Inconvenient Truth DVD or An Inconvenient Truth: The Crisis of Global Warming the book is a great choice if you are looking for something meaningful to give someone for Christmas.

If you haven't heard Melissa Etheridge's great song for the movie, check it out. It makes me all verklempt:




Gore is asking that people sign a million postcards which he will take to the new congress in January. He says:

Yes, the new majority in Congress will be much more receptive on the importance of global warming. That's the good news. But I know from personal experience that the only thing that will make Washington really take notice and do more than give lip service to the problem of global warming is the prospect of millions of committed citizens taking action. It's time to join together and make that happen. Can you help?

Sure we can.


.
digby 12/16/2006 08:05:00 PM |

 
What A Shame

by digby


There's been quite an outcry in China (and here) about the recent public shaming of prostitutes. Everyone seems to acknowledge that there is something inherently discomfiting about this use public humiliation.

But it reminded me of a famous essay by someone you don't usually associate with totalitarian practices --- the godfather of communitarianism, Amitai Etzioni, who wrote some twenty years ago:

Public humiliation is a surprisingly effective and low-cost way of deterring criminals and expressing the moral order of a community. It is used by a few judges, but much too sparingly. Some jurisdictions publish the names of “Johns” who are caught frequenting prostitutes.

Lincoln County in Oregon will plea-bargain with a criminal only if he first puts an advertisement in a local newspaper, apologizing for his crime. This is limited, in practice, to nonviolent criminals, including some burglars and thieves. The ad includes the criminal’s picture and is paid for by him. Judges in Sarasota, Fla., and in Midwest City, Okla., have required people caught driving while under the influence to display an easy-to-see sticker on their cars: “Convicted of Drunken Driving.”

When I mention public shaming to my social-science colleagues, their first reaction is a mixture of disbelief and horror. Such punishment seems some how to violate people’s rights, to be dehumanizing. But what is the alternative if one grants that criminals ought to be punished?

[...]

Some people respond that such penalties remind them of the stars Jews were made to wear in Nazi Germany. However, the main problem with these insignia was that they were imposed on innocent people, on the basis of creed. Marking those convicted in open court, after due process, seems a legitimate use of such a device.

Possibly people object to "psychological punishment" as an alternative to imprisonment precisely because it is public and thus highly visible. They may prefer to shut criminals away, out of town, out of sight, rather than face reminders of their own unsavory inclinations. Maybe they feel that if they were caught with a prostitute or driving drunk, they would rather not see their own names in the paper. That is no reason to suggest psychological punishment is a poor public policy.

[...]


We need more courage and creativity: Should we shave the heads of convicted first-offender teen-agers caught selling hard drugs? (It beats incarceration in “correctional institutions.”) Should we require them to carry placards listing their transgressions and calling on others to desist? Other methods are sure to be found once we look for ways to say “shame on you” to those who committed a crime, and to create opportunities for them to express publicly their shame, penance and regrets.

When I first read this, my immediate thought was that in many cases we weren't talking about "crimes" at all --- and if these behaviors needed to be regulated or punished in some way, that public shaming was the absolute worst way to do it. I certainly agreed that we would no doubt find "other methods." There is no end to the variations of creative humiliations people can devise if given sanction to inflict them. (Abu Ghraib anyone?)

Public, degrading, humiliating affronts to human dignity, institutionalizing phony pretentions of moral superiority, enlisting the public to inflict punishment in the form of social ostracism all seem like Theodore Dreiser novels turned into social science. I recalled that essay when I saw the story about the Chinese prostitutes because it had clarified something for me that I hadn't thought of before: that there was a side to communitarianism that I really recoiled against on a visceral level. There seemed to me to be a great temptation to force conformity through coercive social means.

To me, the idea of institutionalizing community bully tactics and moral scolding as a legitimate tool of the state is nothing short of hell on earth. I'd rather live in a totalitarian political environment any day than a totalitarian social environment that is backed by the rule of law and enforced by James Dobson and Lynn Cheney. (We don't actually have to imagine this. We already lived it.)

The idea has gone on to become quite popular, however, in certain legal circles and is used in courtrooms throughout the nation. The rightwing has joined with the communitarians with an enthusiastic backing of such clever punishments. (One called it "beautifully retributive.") I continue to be appalled at the notion of enlisting the community to administer public shame as a criminal punishment. This is not to say that there is no such thing as creative sentencing, there can be great utility in forcing someone to face the person against whom they transgressed, for instance, and personally offer an apology or some sort of compensation. These are called "guilt punishments" and are not the same thing as public shaming.

Shame is a powerful, primal thing and it's been a socially useful tool since humans were still in caves. But shame is a very short hop to repression and in the hands of the powerful or the mob it can be used for social purposes that have less to do with regulating bad behavior and more to do with sending messages to the community about the dangers of individualism.

The Chinese used it as a form of political represssion during the cultural revolution and that memory is fresh enough that last week's little pageant was protested by many throughout the country. I wonder if there would be outrage in this country if prostitutes were paraded through a town in certain parts of America? I would hope so, but I'm really not sure.


.
digby 12/16/2006 03:32:00 PM |

 
Meanwhile, Back At The Gulag

by digby

We knew this, but it's still good that the AP is investigating and reporting it:

The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba.

Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."

And then set free.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed, or whether some of America's staunchest allies have set terrorists and militants free.

[...]

But through interviews with justice and police officials, detainees and their families, and using reports from human rights groups and local media, The Associated Press was able to track 245 of those formerly held at Guantanamo. The investigation, which spanned 17 countries, found:

Once the detainees arrived in other countries, 205 of the 245 were either freed without being charged or were cleared of charges related to their detention at Guantanamo. Forty either stand charged with crimes or continue to be detained.

Only a tiny fraction of transferred detainees have been put on trial. The AP identified 14 trials, in which eight men were acquitted and six are awaiting verdicts. Two of the cases involving acquittals — one in Kuwait, one in Spain — initially resulted in convictions that were overturned on appeal.

[...]


Overall, about 165 Guantanamo detainees have been transferred from Guantanamo for "continued detention," while about 200 were designated for immediate release. Some 420 detainees remain at the U.S. base in Cuba.

Clive Stafford Smith, a British-American attorney representing several detainees, said the AP's findings indicate that innocent men were jailed and that the term "continued detention" is part of "a politically motivated farce."

"The Bush administration wants to be able to say that these are dangerous terrorists who are going to be confined upon their release ... although there is no evidence against many of them," he said.

[...]

The United States insists that the fact that so many of the former detainees have been freed by other countries doesn't mean they weren't dangerous.

"They were part of Taliban, al-Qaida, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners," said Navy Cmdr. Jeffrey Gordon, a Pentagon spokesman.

But Joshua Colangelo-Bryan, a lawyer representing several detainees, says the fact that hundreds of men have been released into freedom belies their characterization by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth."

"After all, it would simply be incredible to suggest that the United States has voluntarily released such 'vicious killers' or that such men had been miraculously reformed at Guantanamo," Colangelo-Bryan said.

I suppose it shouldn't be surprising that a nation that has more people in jail than totalitarian communist China (which has four times our population), would do such a thing, but it still is. I can only assume that these officials think throwing innocent people in jail to be tortured and driven half mad is just the price that these people have to pay for being the wrong nationality, race or religion.

And they've assigned another psychopath to run the place:

As the first detainees began moving last week into Guantánamo’s modern, new detention facility, Camp 6, the military guard commander stood beneath the high, concrete walls of the compound, looking out on a fenced-in athletic yard.

The yard, where the detainees were to have played soccer and other sports, had been part of a plan to ease the conditions under which more than 400 men are imprisoned here, nearly all of them without having been charged. But that plan has changed.

“At this point, I just don’t see using that,” the guard commander, Col. Wade F. Dennis, said.

After two years in which the military sought to manage terrorism suspects at Guantánamo with incentives for good behavior, steady improvements in their living conditions and even dialogue with prison leaders, the authorities here have clamped down decisively in recent months.

Security procedures have been tightened. Group activities have been scaled back. With the retrofitting of Camp 6 and the near-emptying of another showcase camp for compliant prisoners, military officials said about three-fourths of the detainees would eventually be held in maximum-security cells. That is a stark departure from earlier plans to hold a similar number in medium-security units.

Officials said the shift reflected the military’s analysis — after a series of hunger strikes, a riot last May and three suicides by detainees in June — that earlier efforts to ease restrictions on the detainees had gone too far.

The commander of the Guantánamo task force, Rear Adm. Harry B. Harris Jr., said the tougher approach also reflected the changing nature of the prison population, and his conviction that all of those now held here are dangerous men. “They’re all terrorists; they’re all enemy combatants,” Admiral Harris said in an interview.

He added, “I don’t think there is such a thing as a medium-security terrorist.”

Admiral Harris, who took command on March 31, referred in part to the recent departure from Guantánamo of the last of 38 men whom the military had classified since early 2005 as “no longer enemy combatants.” Still, about 100 others who had been cleared by the military for transfer or release remained here while the State Department tried to arrange their repatriation.

[Shortly after Admiral Harris’s remarks, another 15 detainees were sent home to Saudi Arabia, where they were promptly returned to their families.]

Harris was quoted earlier saying:

MORAN: So no man who ever came to Guantanamo Bay came there by mistake [or] was innocent?

HARRIS: I believe that to be true

Admiral Harris also thinks that these prisoners are committing an act of terrorism when they commit suicide. I guess the logic is that embarrassment for the United States government is equivalent to the deaths of innocent people in a suicide bomb. In fact, he thinks that any resistence to their captivity is terrorism.

Rear Admiral Harris is adamant that the people in his care are well looked after and are enemies of the United States.

He told me they use any weapon they can - including their own urine and faeces - to continue to wage war on the United States.

I wrote about this last fall:

When heavily guarded people in cages throwing feces is considered assymetrical warfare, we have gone down the rabbit hole. (Either that or a couple of toddlers I know are in training to be the next Osama bin Laden.) Does this man think he's actually fighting terrorists down there?

The men being held in Guantanamo might have been terrorists, but when they are under the total control of the most powerful military in the world they are most definitely not combatants, they are prisoners. It's not an act of war to dislike your jailers or resist your imprisonment. That's absurd.

According to the NY Times today, Harris has really straightened things out down there:

Several military officials said Admiral Harris took over the Guantánamo task force with a greater concern about security, and soon ordered his aides to draw up plans to deal with hostage-takings and other emergencies.

He and Colonel Dennis both asserted that Camp 4 — where dozens of detainees rioted during an aggressive search of their quarters last May — represented a particular danger.

Admiral Harris said detainees there had used the freedom of the camp to train one another in terrorist tactics, and in 2004 plotted unsuccessfully to seize a food truck and use it to run over guards.

“Camp 4 is an ideal planning ground for nefarious activity,” he said.

But according to several recent interviews with military personnel who served here at the time, the riot in May did not transpire precisely as military officials had described it. The disturbance culminated with what the military had said was an attack by detainees on members of a Quick Reaction Force that burst into one barracks to stop a detainee who appeared to be hanging himself.

But officers familiar with the event said the force stormed in after a guard saw a detainee merely holding up a sheet and that his intentions were ambiguous. A guard also mistakenly broadcast the radio code for multiple suicide attempts, heightening the alarm, the officers said.

"Nefarious activity?" They send in one more bizarre, psychotic warden down there after another. Maybe that's the only kind of person who is willing to do it.

We know that they paid bounties in Afghanistan to rival clans who sold out their enemies who had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. We know that they knew this very early on and yet kept the prisoners there for years. There may very well still be some of those guys down there. Some of them mayh ave died in prison or killed themselves.

We know that they used the prison as a training camp for green, unskilled interrogators. We know they used excessive force and violence and even blinded prisoners with pepper spray. There has been sexual humiliation and torture.

Even a guard suffered a brain injury while pretending to be an inmate in a training exercise.

Guantanamo is a stain on America that is going to haunt us forever. Its very existence is an affront to the constitution upon which our government is built and the philosophy of human rights that inform it. For years now we've known what was happening down there and yet it still continues. In fact, from today's report, it's taken a recent turn for the worse. I can hardly believe it.

All the sordid evidence of Guantanamo abuse is laid out here and the Center for Constitutional Rights. Amnesty has more.




.
digby 12/16/2006 11:25:00 AM |

 
Up Escalator

by digby

Bill Richardson uses the "e" word and calls out St. John:

"The leading advocate for escalating the war is Senator John McCain. I have served with John in Congress and I respect him. But John McCain is wrong, dead wrong to think that we can solve Iraq's political crisis through military escalation."

Yes, yes, yes. If Bush does what he'd like to do, which is send in more troops, then this will no longer be Bush's war ---- it's McCain's war too and he needs to have it strung around his neck like a neocon albatross. Bush and McCain want to "escalate" the war at a time when 70% of the public believe we should at least begin a process of withdrawal. Don't let him worm his way out of it when he gets his way and it doesn't work.

St. John and The Last Honest Man are both over there right now along with their dapper houseboy, Huckleberry Graham. They are all slavering over the opportunity to commit more troops to the meatgrinder:

McCain said conditions in some areas of Iraq have improved since his last visit in March, but "I believe there is still a compelling reason to have an increase in troops here in Baghdad and in Anbar province in order to bring the sectarian violence under control" and to "allow the political process to proceed."

Two other senators in the delegation, Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., agreed.

"We need more, not less, U.S. troops here," Lieberman said.

So the great bipartisan lions of the Senate, the captains of the sensible Gang of 14 continue to insist that we just haven't spilled enough blood to get the job done despite the fact that they are out of step with the vast majority of the nation and the world.

There was one killjoy among the manly warriors:

Another senator in the group, moderate Republican Susan Collins of Maine, was more cautious.

"Iraq is in crisis. The rising sectarian violence threatens the very existence of Iraq as a nation," she said. The current U.S. strategy in Iraq has failed, but "I'm not yet convinced that additional troops will pave the way to a peaceful Iraq in a lasting sense," Collins said.

She's facing a tough re-election campaign in '08. (And maybe she's sane, who knows?)

Among the punditocrisy these four Senators are considered the perfect "moderates" of the ruling class --- the leaders who best represent the mainstream thinking of "real Americans." And yet they are alone with the radical, failed neocons like William Kristol and Frederick Kagan (who are lobbying with everything they have to try to rescue their tattered reputations) in their view that the war needs to be escalated.

Bravo to Richardson for calling it what it is and calling out John McCain on this right now. We'll see if Dean Broder and his fellow court scribes begin to see him as a dirty hippie now that he's separated himself so boldly from the "centrists" who represent the most radical 10% of the country.


The good news is that Lieberman is no longer a Democrat or he would have reached a new pinnacle of liberal perfidy with this latest gambit. After all, this is the man who ran his last campaign saying "no one wants to end the war more than I do." It takes a lot of chutzpah to turn around two months later and say "we need more, not less, US troops here."

And to think we called him a liar.


Update: McCain says we can send more troops to Afghanistan too. On ponies!

He hedged a little bit though:

"If it's necessary, we will, and I'm sure we would be agreeable, but the focus here is more on training the Afghan National Army and the police, as opposed to the increased U.S. troop presence."

I'm not sure where we're going to get all these troops. Maybe that's what they're going to do with all those illegal immigrants they've been rounding up and shipping to parts unknown.


.
digby 12/16/2006 11:05:00 AM |

 

Bye-Bayh

From WaPo:

Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) announced today that he will forgo a run for president in 2008, citing the "long odds" he would face as a candidate who is not well-known nationally has blood on his hands, and whose war vote helped extinguish a large part of the human race.

One down and two to go.

poputonian 12/16/2006 10:28:00 AM |

Friday, December 15, 2006

 
Why Would They Do That?

by digby


Kevin Drum and Steve Benen wonder why the wingnuts haven't come up with anything good with which to smear Obama. Good question.

It reminds me of some earnest and straightforward analysis Bill Bennett dispensed earlier today:

BENNETT: Well, I mean, as a Republican partisan, let me just say that, for sure, I would rather face Al Gore than Hillary Clinton...

BLITZER: Why?

BENNETT: ... or Barack Obama.

Because I think it's an easier win for a Republican. But, by the way, when they got it tuned into the Al Gore channel tomorrow night, if they flip by accident, and they get Obama, people are not going to go back.

Do you believe Bill Bennett is being honest about this?

I have no idea which candidates really scare the Republicans. But I do know one thing. When lying sacks of discarded table scraps like Bill Bennett tell you that they are afraid to face certain Democrats and don't fear the others --- be skeptical. Be very skeptical. I know it sounds mean and partisan, but experience should tell everyone that he is not a sincere man trying to dispassionately analyze the political scene. Everything he says is designed to benefit the Republican Party.


.
digby 12/15/2006 07:42:00 PM |

 
Illuminating Yawp

by digby

For days I have been half-heartedly trying to draft a post about Christopher Hitchens' flaccid and shrunken sense of self-awareness, but couldn't quite work up any enthusiasm. (I doubt this is the first time first time he's evoked that response.) Lucky for me I don't have to waste even one more frustrated nanosecond trying to find the inspiration to refute his sterile sociological effusion. Lance Mannion says everything that needs to be said.

Thank you Lance. I don't feel dirty anymore.



.
digby 12/15/2006 05:59:00 PM |

 
Armistice

by digby

I'm listening to Rick Warren ("A Purpose Driven Life") talking about how people everywhere are tired of partisanship and want civility. He says that he thinks it's time for both sides to stop being mean to each other --- and he says that base politics are completely out of fashion.Isn't that terrific? We can all put the partisan ugliness of the past two decades behind us a work together.

But I can't help but wonder just a little bit about why all these people never said anything about this when the Republicans held a majority in both houses? After all these years of toxic right wing radio and Fox TV and Ann Coulter, you would have thought these fine non-partisan people would have spoken up sooner. Odd, don't you think?

Oh well. I hear Lucy is getting up a nice game of football for all of us. Anybody up for a rousing chorus of Kumbaaya?


.
digby 12/15/2006 02:38:00 PM |

 
Natural Order

by digby

Most of you probably saw this already over at Kos, but I think it's worth taking another look at. It is interesting that nobody has mentioned this before:

Democrats now have 233 seats in the 110th congress, more than Republicans have had since 1952. The Republican "revolution" never secured this large a majority in the House.

Meanwhile Karl Rove is telling people “the election was awful darn close.” Right.

Those arrogant Republicans thought they were building the thousand year Reich and the Dems managed to build a bigger majority in one go. But the truth is that Republicans are not a majority party and never really have been --- when they get into power they can't seem to help themselves and they become excessive and out of control. Power doesn't become them.

But that doesn't mean they (the Republicans) aren't able to advance their cause; they are very effective as a minority party and they know how to advance their agenda as the opposition. In some respects they govern more effectively from the minority position than from the majority. The Dems never mastered that skill and don't function any better out of power than the Republicans do when they are in power. So we are probably heading back to a more natural state of things, but I would caution that it doesn't mean that the Democrats will easily be able to enact a progressive agenda. They have to outsmart an opposition that knows exactly how to manipulate things to get their way while blaming Democrats for the inevitable fallout.

The good news is that the Democrats have spent some time in the wildreness and hopefully they've grown more savvy. With some coattails next time, they could start to get something real done starting in 2009.



edited slightly for clarity.


.
digby 12/15/2006 01:39:00 PM |

 
Fuggedaboudit

by digby

Oh for gawd's sake. Why does anyone even pretend that Bush is going to listen to reason?

The president signaled Wednesday that neither the study group's pessimistic assessment nor the bleak situation in Iraq nor the results of the midterm elections have shaken his belief that victory in Iraq is possible.

"We're not going to give up," said Bush, who plans to announce his new strategy early next year.

While some key decisions haven't been made yet, the senior officials said the emerging strategy includes:

-A shift in the primary U.S. military mission in Iraq from combat to training an expanded Iraqi army, generally in line with the Iraq Study Group's recommendations.

Huh? Isn't that what they've been saying for years? If I recall correctly, the slogan (er... strategy) two slogans before last was "we'll stand down when the Iraqis stand up."

- A possible short-term surge of as many as 40,000 more American troops to try to secure Baghdad, along with a permanent increase in the size of the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps, which are badly strained by deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Awesome! Doubling Down on St John McCain! Now who's got the bigger codpiece, huh?

[...]

-A revised Iraq political strategy aimed at forging a "moderate center" of Shiite Muslim, Sunni Muslim Arab and Kurdish politicians that would bolster embattled Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki. The goal would be to marginalize radical Shiite militias and Sunni insurgents.

What a good idea. They should send Joe Lieberman over to show them how it's done. I'm sure they'll be thrilled to hear from him. Barring that we could hire a witch doctor to put a spell on the Iraqi government. Either way, I'm sure it will work.

-More money to combat rampant unemployment among Iraqi youths and to advance reconstruction, much of it funneled to groups, areas and leaders who support Maliki and oppose the radicals.

Excellent. We really can't spend enough money on this. And our history of smart spending in Iraq by these people should give the American public a lot of confidence (and Halliburton a lot of bonuses.)

-Rejection of the study group's call for an urgent, broad new diplomatic initiative in the Middle East to address the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and reach out to Iran and Syria.

Instead, the administration is considering convening a conference of Iraq and neighboring countries - excluding Iran and Syria - as part of an effort to pressure the two countries to stop interfering in Iraq.

I'm sure they'll be very impressed.

I have always thought that Bush's temperament was such that he would not withdraw from Iraq. And that temperament is being stoked these days by some very impressive people:

Bush appears to have been emboldened by criticism of its proposals as defeatist by members of the Republican Party's conservative wing and their allies on the Internet, the radio and cable TV.

But we knew that didn't we?

The Braintrust that is running America:



Two more years...


.
digby 12/15/2006 11:19:00 AM |

 
Aid And Comfort

by digby

So the White House is having a little fit that some Senators are going to Syria. I guess they feel their diplomatic efforts have been so successful that they can't take a chance of anyone mucking things up:

The White House on Thursday stepped up its pressure on senators who are engaged in direct talks with Syrian leaders, saying their trips to Damascus risk undermining U.S. efforts to encourage democracy in the Middle East.

[...]

White House Press Secretary Tony Snow suggested Thursday that just by engaging Syrian President Bashar Assad in diplomatic dialogue, visiting senators could dilute Washington's hard-line approach, even if they adopt the administration's language.

"The Syrians have been adventurous and meddlesome in Iraq and in Lebanon and working against the causes of democracy in both of those countries," Snow said.

On Wednesday, the administration criticized Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) shortly after he met with Assad in Damascus.

On Thursday, Snow extended that criticism to two other Democratic senators, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, and a Republican, Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

All of them are planning visits to Damascus, the Syrian capital, in coming weeks.

[...]

Snow said that Nelson had been told before he met with Assad of the administration's displeasure with his plans and that his public comments should serve to notify Dodd, Kerry and Specter of the White House's opposition to their meetings in Damascus.

"The Syrians should have absolutely no doubt," Snow said, "that the position of the United States government is the same as it has been, which is: They know what they need to do. They need to stop harboring terrorists. They need to stop supporting terrorism in Iraq, Lebanon and elsewhere."

He said that regardless of the message delivered by the senators, "the Syrians have already won a PR victory" because the visits were "lending … legitimacy" to the Assad government.

That's interesting. And it makes you wonder why they never said anything about this guy after 9/11. (Yes, it's that time again):

Evidence of Rohrabacher's attempts to conduct his own foreign policy became public on April 10, 2001, not in the U.S., but in the Middle East. On that day, ignoring his own lack of official authority, Rohrabacher opened negotiations with the Taliban at the Sheraton Hotel in Doha, Qatar, ostensibly for a "Free Markets and Democracy" conference. There, Rohrabacher secretly met with Taliban Foreign Minister Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil, an advisor to Mullah Omar. Diplomatic sources claim Muttawakil sought the congressman's assistance in increasing U.S. aid—already more than $100 million annually—to Afghanistan and indicated that the Taliban would not hand over bin Laden, wanted by the Clinton administration for the fatal bombings of two American embassies in Africa and the USS Cole. For his part, Rohrabacher handed Muttawakil his unsolicited plans for war-torn Afghanistan. "We examined a peace plan," he laconically told reporters in Qatar.

To this day, the congressman has refused to divulge the contents of his plan. However, several diplomatic sources say it's likely he asked the extremists to let former Afghan King Zahir Shah return as the figurehead of a new coalition government. In numerous speeches before and after Sept. 11, Rohrabacher has claimed the move would help stabilize Afghanistan for an important purpose: the construction of an oil pipeline there. In return, the plan would reportedly have allowed the Taliban to maintain power until "free" elections could be called.

The idea was outlandish and even provocative. Though he is a member of the same ethnic tribe as the Taliban leadership, the 87-year-old exiled former king—who lost his throne in 1973—is known not for his appreciation of democracy, but for his coziness to Western corporate interests. With good reason, he was considered a U.S. puppet by the Taliban.

After Taliban-related terrorists attacked the U.S. last September, Rohrabacher associates worked hard to downplay the Qatar meeting. Republican strategist Grover Norquist [he was there too --- ed] told a reporter that the congressman had accidentally encountered the Taliban official in a hotel hallway.

But that preposterous assertion is contradicted by much evidence:

•Qatari government officials who told Al-Jazeera television on April 10, 2001, that Rohrabacher sought the meeting in advance and that they had assisted in the arrangements. Muttawakil said he agreed to the meeting "on the basis of allowing each party to express their point of view."

•The congressman himself told other Middle Eastern news outlets that his discussions with the Taliban were "frank and open" and their officials were "thoughtful and inquisitive." Hardly a casual chat in the hallway.

•Similarly, in an interview with Agence France-Presse, Rohrabacher's entourage described the meeting as "a high-level talk."

What's remarkable is not only Rohrabacher's attempt to rewrite history after Sept. 11, but there's also his glaring naivete, evident in his bungling assessment of the Qatar meeting. One member of his entourage, Khaled Saffuri, executive director of the Islamic Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based group that partially bankrolled Rohrabacher's trip, said he was impressed by how "flexible" Taliban officials appeared. Rohrabacher came away equally impressed. He announced he would travel to Afghanistan to work out details with the Taliban.

But Rohrabacher was out of his league. In the Afghan capital of Kabul the next day, Muttawakil presented Rohrabacher's plan to the Taliban. Mullah Omar immediately issued a statement denouncing American efforts to orchestrate a new Afghanistan government. "The infidel world is not letting Muslims form a government of their own choice," he declared.

Try to imagine what would have happened if it had been a Democrat who did such a thing. (Yes I know, ropes and pitchforks come to mind.)

Despite his secret meetings with the Taliban, and despite the fact that Rohrabacher is one of Jack Abramoff's best friends and biggest defenders, and despite the fact that his office has been involved in one of the most sordid child molestation cases in Orange Country history, Rohrabacher has been re-elected three times since 9/11.


I don't know if the government has allowed him to travel to Iraq or Afghanistan after what he did. But he certainly travels in the best circles.


digby 12/15/2006 08:56:00 AM |

Thursday, December 14, 2006

 
Raiders Of The Lost Wingnuts

by digby


I think if there is one thing I find more infuriating than anything else in politics it's obvious, phony spin that fools no one but which everybody nonetheless pretends is normal discourse. It's insults the intelligence.

Here's an example. Last night the Lehrer Newshour did a report on the meat packing immigration raids. They quoted Michael Chertoff at the big press conference saying:

Now, this is not only a case about illegal immigration, which is bad enough; it's a case about identity theft and violation of the privacy rights and the economic rights of innocent Americans.

It's so beautiful to see one of the architects of America's new police state suddenly so concerned about the privacy rights and economic rights of innocent Americans, don't you think? He's keeping the babies safe and at the same time looking out for our rights, which is so inspiring. I feel like singing "We Shall Overcome."

Gwen Ifill then interviewed his adorable crony and (former head of the joint chiefs of staff) Dick Myers' completely unqualified daughter Julie, who is now head legal counsel for DHS. (Even Holy Joe opposed her!)

JULIE MYERS, Immigration and Customs Enforcement: Yesterday's actions, however, were about ICE enforcing the law. Each and every one of the individuals that were arrested yesterday on administrative charges was using a stolen, a real Social Security number of a U.S. citizen.

We took appropriate action; we behaved appropriately. And until the law changes, we're here to enforce it.

GWEN IFILL: I was confused about the identity theft argument. There were 1,200, almost 1,300 people arrested; 65 of them -- maybe 5 percent of them -- were charged with identity theft. Yet that was the emphasis today at your news conference about why this whole thing was being pursued. Was that the main impetus for this raid, this series of raids?

JULIE MYERS: Well, this action started as a worksite enforcement action. And as it was noted in your initial segment, it was the largest worksite enforcement action we've ever had.

GWEN IFILL: Enforcing what, immigration laws or...

JULIE MYERS: Enforcing immigration law. But what we're finding is that a number of people who are here illegally, working illegally, they used to use just phony documents. And now they're using real documents, documents of U.S. citizens who in many cases may not know they're being used. And that's providing real harm to these U.S. victims.

There was an example this morning about a victim who was pulled over and was arrested because someone who was working at a Swift plant had been using his Social Security number and got a criminal record under his name. These people have gone out, they've gotten telephone bills under their fake identities, and all sorts of problems.

GWEN IFILL: Is this an organized ring which has been trying to do this, that has been selling this stolen information, or is this just something which has sprung up over time?

JULIE MYERS: In the Swift instance, we actually found a number of different document vendors and document rings, and it's very important to us that we track down those rings and prosecute those individuals.

Last month in Minnesota, we tracked down one that was actually providing U.S. birth certificates for individuals from Puerto Rico and Social Security cards, and they were all ending up for individuals who then went to work at the Swift plants.

Even Ifill seems a little non-plussed and she's usually right with the program. There is only one reason to spin this like this. They are trying to create a belief among the American people that there is a big problem with Mexicans stealing their identities. They are going out of their way to create a more substantial and identifiable sense of victimhood and in the process are stoking resentment and racism. I don't know if they've focus-grouped this or if they're operating purely on instinct, but it's going to hit the primitives hard: "Mexicans are trying to steal my life!!!!"

I don't doubt that there is some identity theft going on. But it is not rampant and it's not going to affect average white Republicans named Bubba. (It's far more likely that it would hit Mexican Americans named Ricardo.) By making it the major emphasis of the story and conflating it with the fact that they arrested more than a thousand undocumented workers who spend their days up to their knees in blood and sinew so that we can enjoy our cheap hamburger, they betray their real agenda. Right wingers just don't feel alive if they aren't being victimized by somebody or other.

It reminds me of the old "Saddam had WMD and ties to Al Qaeda" dodge. They don't come right out and say it. But look for polls to reflect the idea that identity theft is mainly perpetrated by illegal immigrants very soon.

To be clear, I think identity theft is a very serious problem. As a major privacy advocate I'm all for enforcement of the laws against it. But the problem is huge and getting bigger in the US not because of illegal immigration but because of con artists and nasty relatives. By trying to turn this into an immigration problem they are misleading the public and unfairly targeting the immigrats with something that most of them don't even know exists.

The good news, however, is that even though the Mexicans are stealing their lives, there are now available a whole bunch of those great jobs working with cow and pig guts all day so they can improve their lives and get rich like all the Republicans promise them! Is this a great country or what?


More on the raids from FDL, here.


.
digby 12/14/2006 06:10:00 PM |

 
Oiling The Hinges

by digby

Glenn Greenwald offers a fascinating anatomy of a small wingnut feeding frenzy today as he recounts the breathless, overwrought coverage on the right wing blogs (and National Review) of the bizarre story that the Clinton Administration had spied on Princess Diana. He had earlier noted when the story first broke that the conservatives instantly formed the theory that this somehow invalidated liberal arguments against the illegal spying. (I guess it's logical that conservatives would think that legally spying on British royalty in Paris without a warrant is the same as illegally spying on an American citizen in Cincinnati without one. They love the idea of monarchy.)

Anyway, read Glenn's post to see just what horses asses these wingnuts made of themselves over this silly story --- which was revealed today to be complete nonsense. But Glenn asks some interesting questions and brings up some points about this whole thing that are worth discussing a little bit more:

What kind of judgment do these people have that they have been running around for the last several days all but accusing the Clinton administration of lawbreaking and dark eavesdropping plots? That, of course, led to the standard campaign to start heaping all the blame on Hillary and her amoral, monstrous quest for political power.

Fox News linked to York's National Review original article, touting it as a story suggesting the need for a "Clinton probe" over wiretapping. Between the multiple National Review items (York, Frum, McCarthy), Instapundit, Kaus at Slate, the Fox link, not to mention all the right-wing blogs linking to them how many people were subjected to this completely baseless innuendo, all of which was designed to suggest that Bush's eavesdropping is unnoteworthy because Clinton did worse and/or that Hillary illegally bugged poor Princess Diana all for selfish political reasons, etc.

It was so obvious from the beginning that there were gaping holes in the story and that the "sources" for it were extremely unreliable. York even prefaced his article with this acknowledgment: "The first thing to remember in trying to evaluate reports that U.S. intelligence services wiretapped Princess Diana is that British press accounts can be notoriously unreliable."

But that isn't good enough. In fact, that makes it worse. Gossip columnists pass on rumors. Responsible, credible analysts, political pundits, and journalists do not. And they certainly don't spend day after day, like Kaus did (with Reynolds cheering on every word) building one scurrilous accusation after the next based on chatter.

Actually they do. This is how the rightwing noise machine operates under the Clinton Rules. If it had turned out that this story had even some vague basis in fact, it would only have been a matter of days before the entire machinery of the Entertainment Industrial Complex would have cranked up to join in the irresponsible speculation.

I believe this reaction is an emotional thing as much as a political tactic. They are drawn like moths to flame at any slight suggestion of a sleazy, nefarious and hopefully sexy story about Democrats, particularly the Clintons. Perhaps it's pavlovian by now --- they went to that well so often and with such fervor for eight long years that they no longer have control of their own impulses. But the focus and intensity and sheer joy they obviously feel in pursuing these trivial, irrelevant stories and then pumping them up into fables and allegories rich with hidden meaning and messages of great import, is a sight to behold. When the mainstream press joins in you have a frenzy of epic proportions.

This is how it will be if we have a Democratic president. The right likes it this way. And it works for them. Knowing that the public can't avert their eyes any more than they can avert their eyes from a car crash or Britney Spears, they exhaust them with these stories, creating a feeling almost of overindulgence, like too much chocolate mousse. The resultant sick feeling they then project on to the person in office. They called it "Clinton fatigue" last time. In fact, it's just that concept that they are conjuring with this Diana story --- showing the folks that if Hillary wins the presidency we'll be face first in that mousse again.

The truth is that we will be in it no matter who is president. These people are trained to fetishize these small stories so they can make Democrats seem frivolous and small. It's a game to them, sure, and they love it more than any other kind of political combat, but it's also a very successful tactic. They tie the Democrats in knots and keep the Kewl Kidz distracted and amused. It's what they do best.

They're a little bit rusty so they are oiling up the hinges with this silly Diana story. This is only the beginning.



.
digby 12/14/2006 03:24:00 PM |

 
Good For Only One Thing

by digby


The Republicans (and some Democrats) have made a fetish of describing the warrantless surveillance programs as necessary to catch terrorists before they hit. They can't tell us anything about what these programs actually do --- it's quite clear there is more to it than "listening in on the phone calls of terrorists." One of the things that most people agree upon is that it includes some sort of datamining and I suspect that when this is explained to some of these congressmen and Senators, their eyes glaze over in the same way they do when anybody talks about the intertubes. They are, to be kind, very easily hoodwinked with technobabble.

But what if it were determined that the entire premise was flawed?

One of the fundamental underpinnings of predictive data mining in the commercial sector is the use of training patterns. Corporations that study consumer behavior have millions of patterns that they can draw upon to profile their typical or ideal consumer. Even when data mining is used to seek out instances of identity and credit card fraud, this relies on models constructed using many thousands of known examples of fraud per year.

Terrorism has no similar indicia. With a relatively small number of attempts every year and only one or two major terrorist incidents every few years—each one distinct in terms of planning and execution—there are no meaningful patterns that show what behavior indicates planning or preparation for terrorism.

[...] Without patterns to use, one fallback for terrorism data mining is the idea that any anomaly may provide the basis for investigation of terrorism planning. Given a “typical” American pattern of Internet use, phone calling, doctor visits, purchases, travel, reading, and so on, perhaps all outliers merit some level of investigation. This theory is offensive to traditional American freedom, because in the United States everyone can and should be an “outlier” in some sense. More concretely, though, using data mining in this way could be worse than searching at random; terrorists could defeat it by acting as normally as possible.

Treating “anomalous” behavior as suspicious may appear scientific, but, without patterns to look for, the design of a search algorithm based on anomaly is no more likely to turn up terrorists than twisting the end of a kaleidoscope is likely to draw an image of the Mona Lisa.

Tim F. At Balloon Juice points out the political implications:

As the civil liberty debate rages, even our extreme authoritarians couch their arguments in terms of benefit relative to cost. If the benefit doesn’t exist then wannabe autocrats like Newt Gingrich plainly have no leg to stand on. The only remaining support would have to come from these programs’ side benefits, primarily the existence of a detailed dossier on the personal life of every American citizen. That should come in handy in case any priest becomes, as one departed ruler might put it, a bit turbulent.*

This is an authoritarian dream come true. Here they have the means to root out anyone who steps outside the norm, who doesn't conform to mainstream standards of behavior. Someone, perhaps, like this dirty hippie who was a bit of a flake and worked on strange machinery in his garage. (Pssst. He's half Syrian, too.)


The right invented the term useful idiot to describe those who were being used and manipulated by the commies. They are today behaving as useful idiots for the Islamo-fascists" they profess to hate. If you really wanted to destroy America you wouldn't stop at trashing the constitution or taunt them into useless wars. You'd also hope that the nation would shut down the iconoclastic individuals who tend to be artists and entrepreneurs and "outliers" as the article suggests. That could eventually destroy the vibrancy of the culture and the dynamism of its economy. These religious extremists think in terms of centuries and I'm sure they are quite pleased with the pace of their project so far.



.
digby 12/14/2006 02:04:00 PM |

 
Whiplash

by digby


It's amazing to realize that Lucianne Goldberg's offspring gets paid good money to write things like this in the Los Angeles Times.

Following on this new hagiography of free-market guru and all around successful leader Augusto Pinochet, Goldberg bizarrely implies that "the left" is agitating for an Iraqi Fidel, and argues that Iraq would be better off with an Iraqi Pinochet instead. He actually says, "if only Ahmad Chalabi had been such a man."

After all, Pinochet may have tortured and killed his political opponents for years, but it all came out ok in the end after he left office. Meanwhile, we on the left allegedly worship Castro en masse, who's also killed thousands, and his country is still poor and unfree. So the left must cry uncle. Or something. (No word on where eastern Europe plays into this new "theory" of rightwing dictator superiority. Last I looked, the ex-commies of the eastern Bloc were doing even better than Chile.)

Anyway, Jonah wonders which kind of torturing tyrant the Iraqis would prefer us to install, which is downright democratic of him, when you think about it:

I ask you: Which model do you think the average Iraqi would prefer? Which model, if implemented, would result in future generations calling Iraq a success? An Iraqi Pinochet would provide order and put the country on the path toward liberalism, democracy and the rule of law. (If only Ahmad Chalabi had been such a man.)

Now, you might say: "This is unfair. This is a choice between two bad options." OK, true enough. But that's all we face in Iraq: bad options. When presented with such a predicament, the wise man chooses the more moral, or less immoral, path. The conservative defense of Pinochet was that he was the least-bad option; better the path of Pinochet than the path toward Castroism, which is where Chile was heading before the general seized power. Better, that is, for the United States and for Chileans.

I bring all this up because in the wake of Pinochet's death (and Jeane Kirkpatrick's), the old debate over conservative indulgence of Pinochet has elicited shrieking from many on the left claiming that any toleration of Pinochet was inherently immoral — their own tolerance of Castro notwithstanding.

Right. Never mind that Allende was a socialist, not a communist, and never mind that he was democratically elected. Oh, and never mind that he wasn't torturing his political opponents with electrodes strapped to their genitals or dropping them alive from helicopters!

Never mind either that this entire discussion of "bad options" and comparing Iraq to Castro and Pinochet is stupid; the bad options are between chaos, civil war, and religious dictatorship which have absolutely nothing to do with any of the bullshit that Goldberg is nattering on about.

Sorry bub. Support for Pinochet's mass killing and torture is inherently immoral. And justifying your support because the Chilean economy is doing better than Cuba's is just plain disgusting. This is what has become of the grand neocon experiment in Iraq: phony rhetorical battles with leftist ghosts of thirty years ago. It would be sad if it weren't so sick.

I should point out that Goldberg does mention the torture. After listing Castros many sins, here's what he says:

Now consider Chile. Gen. Pinochet seized a country coming apart at the seams. He too clamped down on civil liberties and the press. He too dispatched souls. Chile's official commission investigating his dictatorship found that Pinochet had 3,197 bodies in his column; 87% of them died in the two-week mini-civil war that attended his coup. Many more were tortured or forced to flee the country.

Right:

Sexual abuse, including rape using animals, burns from cigarettes, welding torches and acid, ripping off fingernails with pliers, immersion in water, cooking oil or petroleum, and being forced to watch other detainees, often family members, being tortured.

This partial list of torture methods used under the Chilean dictatorship of Gen. Augusto Pinochet (1973-1990) also includes beatings, mock executions, lengthy detentions with blindfolds or hoods, electric shock to the genitals and other sensitive parts of the body, as well as the bursting of eardrums using loud noises. The descriptions are contained in a report presented Wednesday to Chilean President Ricardo Lagos by a special commission that spent a year gathering testimony from 35,000 torture victims.

Here's more:

Among other things, the former commander of the armed forces is charged with having -- jointly with others and in purported performance of official duties -- intentionally inflicted severe pain or suffering on:

•Marta Lidia Ugarte Roman, by suspending her from a pole in a pit; pulling out her finger nails and toe nails, and burning her;

•Meduardo Paredes Barrientos, by systematically breaking his wrists, pelvis, ribs and skull; burning him with a blowtorch or flamethrower;

•Adriana Luz Pino Vidal, a pregnant woman, by applying electric shocks to her vagina, ears, hands, feet and mouth, and stubbing out cigarettes on her stomach;

•Antonio Llido Mengual, a priest born in Valencia, Spain, by applying electric current to his genitals and repeatedly beating his whole body;


Some forms of torture included the employment of a man with visible open syphilitic sores on his body, to rape female captives and to use on them a dog trained in sexual practices with human beings.

Who can argue that rape by dogs is a small price to pay for free markets thirty years from now? Let's hope the Iraqis are so lucky.

Jonah indoubtedly thinks that Pinochet and his henchmen were just blowing off steam. And as for the wonderful Chilean outcome, perhaps Jonah should ask himself how healthy a country can be when it is still, after 30 years, trying to exorcise the demons that were unleashed under Pinochet. Chile is still traumatized and will remain so until everyone who lived under that cruelty is dead.

But they do have free markets.

And here's the odd part. All these glowing tributes to Pinochet see Chile as a great right wing success story. But they have a socialist feminist president today--- a woman whose father was tortured to death by Pinochet and who was herself, along with her mother, tortured before she was exiled. Do you supose she agrees that Pinochet was a blessing for her country?

Finally one observation that makes me wonder what possesses the LA Times to publish this guy. He concludes his article with this:

But these days, there's a newfound love for precisely this sort of realpolitik. Consider Jonathan Chait, who recently floated a Swiftian proposal that we put Saddam Hussein back in power in Iraq because, given his track record of maintaining stability and recognizing how terrible things could get in Iraq, Hussein might actually represent the least-bad option. Even discounting his sarcasm, this was morally myopic. But it seems to me, if you can contemplate reinstalling a Hussein, you'd count yourself lucky to have a Pinochet.

Have you ever read anything so muddled in your life? It makes Kaye Grogan sound coherent.

First, there's this alleged "newfound love for precisely this sort of realpolitik." He uses Jonathan Chait's essay* on bringing back Saddam as the basis for this, but he describes it as "Swiftian", meaning he believes it was satire, presumably in the mode of "A Modest Proposal" which presented a horrifying option to an intractable problem in order to illuminate the lack of moral concern on the part of the ruling class. If that were so, then then it is not a "newfound love" but rather a "newfound disdain" or "newfound loathing" that Chait was displaying.

He then says that "even if you discount the sarcasm" it is "morally myopic." Well, duh. If you "discount" the satire of "A Modest Proposal" you would be advocating cannibalizing children. Jesus. But Goldberg has just spent seven paragraphs telling us why you sometimes have to make such unpleasant decisions as Chait suggests so I don't see why he, of all people, would consider Chait morally myopic. They agree.

Goldberg is a very confused person, which is a condition we are seeing a lot of among the right wing (and some very dizzy liberal hawks.) It's amazing to see them switch abruptly from waving their purple fingers of democracy in everybody's faces to serious public contemplation of installing a friendly dictator. They must be experiencing some kind of psychic whiplash.



* For the record, as I wrote before I don't believe Johnathan Chait's article actually was satire. As he explained later, it was actually a pretty straightforward proposition --- that the US and Iraq might be better off if we installed a strongman. He suggests Saddam because he's the guy who would scare the Iraqis straight in a hurry. I don't know how Chait feels about Pinochet's reign, but he is quite seriously entertaining the idea that we might be better off making a Pinochet omelette in Iraq. He and Goldberg are equally morally myopic on this topic.


.
digby 12/14/2006 11:32:00 AM |

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

 
Blunderbuss Express

by digby

St. John wants to escalate the Iraq war and shut down the internet, too. What a guy.

Millions of commercial Web sites and personal blogs would be required to report illegal images or videos posted by their users or pay fines of up to $300,000, if a new proposal in the U.S. Senate came into law.

The legislation, drafted by Sen. John McCain and obtained by CNET News.com, would also require Web sites that offer user profiles to delete pages posted by sex offenders.

In a speech on the Senate floor Wednesday, the Arizona Republican and former presidential candidate warned that "technology has contributed to the greater distribution and availability, and, some believe, desire for child pornography." McCain scored 31 of 100 points on a News.com 2006 election guide scoring technology-related votes.

[...]

Internet service providers already must follow those reporting requirements. But McCain's proposal is liable to be controversial because it levies the same regulatory scheme--and even stiffer penalties--on even individual bloggers who offer discussion areas on their Web sites.

"I am concerned that there is a slippery slope here," said Kevin Bankston, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation in San Francisco. "Once you start creating categories of industries that must report suspicious or criminal behavior, when does that stop?"

According to the proposed legislation, these types of individuals or businesses would be required to file reports: any Web site with a message board; any chat room; any social-networking site; any e-mail service; any instant-messaging service; any Internet content hosting service; any domain name registration service; any Internet search service; any electronic communication service; and any image or video-sharing service.

[...]

But the reporting rules could prove problematic for individuals and smaller Web sites because the definitions of child pornography have become relatively broad.

The U.S. Justice Department, for instance, indicted an Alabama man named Jeff Pierson last week on child pornography charges because he took modeling photographs of clothed minors with their parents' consent. The images were overly "provocative," a prosecutor claimed.

Right. Leave the definition of "child pron" in the eye of the wingnut and you've got the makings of a full-on witchhunt.

But what is most irritating about this latest absurd solution to a difficult problem is the fact that once again, you have idiots making policy about things of which they don't even have a basic understanding:

The other section of McCain's legislation targets convicted sex offenders. It would create a federal registry of "any e-mail address, instant-message address, or other similar Internet identifier" they use, and punish sex offenders with up to 10 years in prison if they don't supply it.

[..]

"This constitutionally dubious proposal is being made apparently mostly based on fear or political considerations rather than on the facts," said EFF's Bankston. Studies by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children show the online sexual solicitation of minors has dropped in the past five years, despite the growth of social-networking services, he said.

A McCain aide, who did not want to be identified by name, said on Friday that the measure was targeted at any Web site that "you'd have to join up or become a member of to use." No payment would be necessary to qualify, the aide added.

Yes. We're all issued an e-mail address at birth so a registry of such addresses will definitely make it impossible for sexual predators to operate on the internet. Maybe we could have a permanent web-cam embedded in their foreheads so that we could watch them while they type, too. And it's a good thing they're targeting the sites where you have to "sign up" because that will certainly put a stop to it.

In this political climate, members of Congress may not worry much about precise definitions. Another bill also vaguely targeting social-networking sites was approved by the U.S. House of Representatives in a 410-15 vote.

No word on whether McCain and his fellow lawmakers are going to pass legislation making it illegal for politicians to pander to people's fears with stupid, useless legislation while their own brethren are hitting on 16 year old pages.

Next year, Gonzales and the FBI are expected to resume their push for mandatory data retention, which will force Internet service providers to keep records on what their customers are doing online. An aide to Rep. Diana DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, said Friday that she's planning to introduce such legislation when the new Congress convenes.

Cathy Milhoan, an FBI spokeswoman, said on Friday that the FBI "continues to support data retention. We see it as crucial in advancing our cyber investigations to include online sexual exploitation of children."

Who can argue with that? Maintaining information about what every American is reading and writing on the internet is necessary to keep children safe.

Other data,though, not so much. Remember this?

March 8, 2005

Dozens of terror suspects on federal watch lists were allowed to buy firearms legally in the United States last year, according to a Congressional investigation that points up major vulnerabilities in federal gun laws.

People suspected of being members of a terrorist group are not automatically barred from legally buying a gun, and the investigation, conducted by the Government Accountability Office, indicated that people with clear links to terrorist groups had regularly taken advantage of this gap.

Since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, law enforcement officials and gun control groups have voiced increasing concern about the prospect of a terrorist walking into a gun shop, legally buying an assault rifle or other type of weapon and using it in an attack.

The G.A.O. study offers the first full-scale examination of the possible dangers posed by gaps in the law, Congressional officials said, and it concludes that the Federal Bureau of Investigation ''could better manage'' its gun-buying records in matching them against lists of suspected terrorists.

F.B.I. officials maintain that they are hamstrung by laws and policies restricting the use of gun-buying records because of concerns over the privacy rights of gun owners.

Priorities, you know.



.
digby 12/13/2006 07:49:00 PM |

 
Film Noir

by digby


In Modo's hit piece today she quotes Obama saying something that I had to go look up to believe.

He said:

"We have a certain script in our politics, and one of the scripts for black politicians is that for them to be authentically black they have to somehow offend white people," Obama said in an interview. "And then if he puts a multiracial coalition together, he must somehow be compromising the efforts of the African-American community.

"To use a street term," he added, "we flipped the script."

I've never heard of this script. Is it true?



.
digby 12/13/2006 02:42:00 PM |

 
Removing The Stinger

by digby

Maureen Dowd does a spectacular Queen Bee Kill today of both Clinton and Obama, basically calling her a sexless schlub and him a metrosexual cipher. With her usual original insight she notes that Clinton is a woman and Obama is black and then ends the piece with this darling little observation:

So there is a second question, perhaps one that will trump race and gender. It's about whether he's tough and she's human.

Told yah. Democrats are a bunch of bitches and girly-men --- the kewl kidz are sharpening their claws to do the GOP's dirty work for them again.

Via TPM, I see that Jeff Greenfield has responded to the blogosphere's exasperation athis story comparing Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's mode of dress. Just as his fellow entertainer Rush Limbaugh always does, he claims he was joking and that bloggers are hotheads, trying to feed their blog beast with silly stuff like this.

I figured there was no way on planet Earth that anyone could possibly take such a presentation at face value. I was wrong.

Nobody that I know of was suggesting that he meant it at "face value" which I guess would be that Obama and Ahmandinejad's similar mode of dress means that they have similar political views. What I criticized was the sub-text of such remarks and how these remarks are common right wing tools used to slander, demean and trivialize their opponents. The fact that Jeanne Moos also did a "funny" riff that day on Obama's middle name "Hussein" (that was far more revealing of people's bigotry than anything else) what you saw was this subtle theme emerging that implies both that Obama is superficial on the one hand (look at his GQ clothes!) and also somewhat exotic and foreign --- not to be trusted. Enough "jokes" like this and over time people will develop an uncomfortable feeling about Obama's "style" and his exotic name without even knowing that they have it or where it came from. That's how these subtle themes work.

Greenfield even mentions the Daily Howler as one of the critical bloggers --- the Daily Howler that wrote the book on the trivialization and character assasination of Al Gore with the very same shallow, schoolkid nonsense that Greenfield pulled on Obama, (which Greenfield implies are completely different things.) This thesis has been rigorously explored there and in the rest of the blogosphere and its conclusion is one of the reasons why the blogosphere has exploded. Far from being a little sideline we indulge in when we need some filler, it is one of the reasons we exist.

We have found, among many other things, that there is an obsession among the press corps with a very peculiar form of gender stereotypes which they affix to the political parties. This may be a function of what seems to be their terminal immaturity (and perhaps it has simply become reflex after all this time), but it is also part of a long term political strategy on the right to paint the Democrats as being odd, untrustworthy, hysterical, overly sensitive and soft --- what neanderthals think of as traditionally negative female characteristics. Not only does this narrative feed into these negative sereotypes, which benefits traditonal power structures in general, it feeds into a positive male leadership archetype, which has been appropriated by the Republican Party. It is what allowed a halfwit, manchild to be elected as a "grown-up" while the real adult was derided as some sort of Blanche DuBois character who had lost his grip on reality. The kewl kidz laughed and laughed while the rest of stood there dumbfounded and paralyzed at this bizarre interpretation of reality. We aren't paralyzed anymore.

Is it a sin, in and of itself, that Greenfield trivialized Barack Obama for his wardrobe and compared him to a holocaust denying psychopath? Not really. Is it a major goof for Jeanne Moos to simultaneously go out on the street and ask people if they think his "weird" middle name means that he can't be elected? Probably not.

But you'll have to excuse us hotheads for reacting strongly when we see these things because the last time the media decided to have "fun" and tell "jokes," this way, enough people believed them that it ended up changing the world in the most dramatic and violent way possible. We are in this mess today at least partly because these people failed to do their duty and approached their jobs as if it were a seventh grade slumber party instead of the serious business of the most powerful nation on earth.

I don't know what is wrong with them and their social construct that makes them so susceptible to this, or why they fail to see how this bias toward phony Republican machismo distorts political reporting, but it's a big pro