October 2005 Archives

I know that most of you reading this are not lawyers.

But hear me out -- I want to explain how Planned Parenthood v. Casey affirmed a woman's fundamental right to control her reproductive life and I want to explain how right-wing extremists want to negate that right through the nomination and confirmation of Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS.

Here's the case, in a nutshell:

In 1988-89, the Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law. Among the new provisions, the law required this:

• Informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure.
  
• A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allowed for a judicial bypass procedure).
  
• A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to have an abortion

These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband-notification requirement. The dissenting opinion was written by Samuel Alito, who believed that it was not an undue burden to require the wife to notify her husband of her intent to have an abortion.

In a 5-4 decision, the SCOTUS reaffirmed Roe, while simultaneously upholding all of the provisions except the husband-notification provision. The majority opinion was co-authored by Justices Souter, Kennedy and O'Connor. Addressing the husband-notification provision, they said this (paraphrasing):

The husband-notification provision constitutes an undue burden, and is therefore invalid.

A significant number of women will likely be prevented from obtaining an abortion just as surely as if Pennsylvania had outlawed the procedure entirely. The fact that the provision may affect fewer than one percent of women seeking abortions does not save it from invalidity, since the proper focus of a constitutional inquiry is the group for whom the law is a restriction, not the group for whom it is irrelevant.

Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband.

The husband-notification provision embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to this Court's present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution.

Flash forward 13 years: Samuel Alito is now poised to take his place on the SCOTUS where he will probably be in the majority the next time a law of this sort comes before the Justices.

And that, my friends, is a repugnant thought.

Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to the SCOTUS. And it shouldn't come as any surprise that I strongly oppose that nomination. More on that later.

But first I want to put a stake in the ground and establish what I believe is a fundamental value that liberals, progressives and Democrats must fight to protect:

Women have a right to participate equally and fully in the economic and social life of our nation. This right has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives. If our Constitution is to be meaningful at all, it is to do this: to serve human values. And this value is one of the most basic of all -- to be in control of your own body.

I believe that the likes of Samuel Alito would put this fundamental value at risk. That is why every Democrat (and any right-minded Republican) must vote against his confirmation.

Rewind the tape:

QUESTION: Mr. Fitzgerald, this began as a leak investigation but no one is charged with any leaking. Is your investigation finished? Is this another leak investigation that doesn't lead to a charge of leaking?

FITZGERALD: Let me answer the two questions you asked in one.

OK, is the investigation finished? It's not over, but I'll tell you this: Very rarely do you bring a charge in a case that's going to be tried and would you ever end a grand jury investigation.

I can tell you, the substantial bulk of the work in this investigation is concluded.

Hmmm. It shouldn't take a political scientist to figure out that Patrick Fitzgerald is just waiting for Scooter Libby to decide whether or not he wants to go to prison in return for protecting "Dick" Cheney, Karl Rove, and God knows who else.

Simply put, Fitzgerald has Libby in an air-tight headlock and he's slowly squeezing Libby's airpipe shut. At some point, Libby will croak, or he'll signal that he's had enough.

If and when that happens, heaven help the White House.

I have no idea who will get the Dem nomination for President in 2008. After all, he who looks into the crystal ball is bound to eat broken glass. That said, it looks like Wes Clark has strong support at the grass-roots level. At the other end of the street, the establishment favorite seems to be Hillary. But I have many, many yellow-dog Democrat friends who recoil in horror at the thought of her getting the nomination.

"She'll never win. They'll never vote for her in the South. It would be a huge mistake for the Democrats."

So I ask them, "But didn't we already try nominating someone who was electable? How did that work out? Not so well."

Electability, by itself, literally doesn't mean anything. What you want is someone who actually stands for something. You want someone who stakes out a clear position in opposition to the other candidate and then fights for it. So, like, people have a choice, you know?

If you go into a restaurant and the two items on the menu are "A Cheeseburger" and "Another Cheeseburger," what are you going to order? A Cheeseburger.

You have to offer a clear alternative. And people have to understand that you are willing to stand up and fight for it. This was a huge problem for Kerry. We didn't know what he stood for and (whatever it was) we weren't convinced he was willing to stand up and fight for it.

I've said elsewhere that the majority of this country already agrees with key Democratic issues: universal health care, saving Social Security, strengthening public education, protecting jobs, etc. etc. But who is willing to stand up and fight for these issues? Not a lot of Democrats, apparently.

And how about the war in Iraq? Haven't we've poured hundreds of billions of dollars into the war? Haven't we endured over ten thousand casualties? Don't the Iraqis now have a constitution and a nascent defense force? Clearly we need to commit to the rebuilding of their country -- after all, we destroyed it didn't we? But isn't it about time we commit to pulling out the troops? Isn't it about time that make it clear we have no intention to establish a permanent presence there? Isn't it about time we come home now? Haven't we done enough?

I think the majority of Americans would agree. But who, among the Dems will say that and then push hard to make it happen?

I was reminded of all of this when I read that Bill Clinton gave a speech in Texas the other day:

Democrats can't be afraid to talk about hot-button issues, including abortion, and should fight back against personal attacks from conservatives if they want to regain power in Washington, former President Bill Clinton said Saturday.

"You can't say, 'Please don't be mean to me. Please let me win sometimes.' Give me a break here," Clinton said. "If you don't want to fight for the future and you can't figure out how to beat these people then find something else to do."

Wake up Democrats, it's time for school.

Who is Samuel Alito? He's the guy who wrote:

[a] dissenting opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), arguing that a Pennsylvania that required women seeking abortions to inform their husbands should have been upheld.

As Judge Alito reasoned, "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems--such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition--that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."

Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent from the Supreme Court's 5-4 decision striking down the spousal notification provision of the law quoted Judge Alito's dissent and expressed support for Judge Alito's reasoning.

My favorite Bush apologist, Rosemary, tries to punch her way out of a paper bag:

It doesn't matter that you or anyone else thinks [Bush is] weak, it's what [Bush] believes that counts.

Ro, you are so wrong it's unbelievable.

What matters in Washington, what has always mattered inside the Beltway, is the perception of strength. And, believe me, when GOP Congressman Foghorn (R-BF Egypt) feels free to take potshots at the CinC, something is very, very wrong and you can be sure that Bush is in trouble.

Bush badly needs another win right now. He needed one and he got it with Roberts. Now things are even worse, after the Miers debacle and the CIA Leak Scandal.

Who does he pick for the next nominee? Does he energize the base with a wingnut like Judge Alito (who is nicknamed "Scalito") or Janice Rogers Brown? Or does he try to do what he did before -- work with the Dems? Be aware that it wasn't the Dems that deep-sixed Miers. It was the wingnuts.

The other thing is, this isn't Clinton during Lewinsky -- in those days Clinton's approval ratings were stratospherically high. This time around, Bush's approval ratings are in the toilet and circling the drain. It's the wingnuts who are keeping his nose above water (so maybe he nominates another wingnut after all).

People around the country understand all of this. They're not stupid, they're smart -- and their Congressmen are getting an earful, trust me.

Bottom line: when Clinton said he's going back to do the work of the American people, a cheer went up. When Bush says it now, there's a collective cry of "Oh, nooooooooo!"

Wake up, Rosemary -- It's time for school!

Libby gets nailed on 5 counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. If convicted on all counts, he could get up to 30 years in prison. Of course the odds of him seeing the inside of Allenwood are almost nil. Nonetheless, this is serious stuff.

Meanwhile, Rove did not get indicted...so far. From the White House's view, this is perhaps the worst of all possible outcomes, because it leaves him twisting in the wind indefinitely.

And Bush? His statement left me cold.

Below is how a tough and truly resolute President would have handled it:

Today I accepted the resignation of Scooter Libby. Scooter has worked tirelessly on behalf of the American people and sacrificed much in the service to this country. He served the Vice President and me through extraordinary times in our nation's history.

Special Counsel Fitzgerald's investigation and ongoing legal proceedings are serious, and now the proceedings -- the process moves into a new phase. In our system, each individual is presumed innocent and entitled to due process and a fair trial.

While we're all saddened by today's news, we remain wholly focused on the many issues and opportunities facing this country. I got a job to do, and so do the people who work in the White House. We got a job to protect the American people, and that's what we'll continue working hard to do. I must insist that everyone within the sound of my voice understand this one fact: if you work in the White House, you must be above reproach at all times.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times: my administration will restore honor and dignity in the White House. Yes, Scooter Libby is innocent until proven guilty. But if you think that what has happened to him is OK with me, you are sadly mistaken.

So let me be perfectly clear: the next person who in any way becomes tainted like this will not have the luxury of presenting me with his resignation because I will tear it up and fire them on the spot. I don't care who it is.

Don't. Test. Me.

Now, I look forward to working with Congress on policies to keep this economy moving. And pretty soon I'll be naming somebody to the Supreme Court.

Thank you all very much.

We keep hearing how the casualty count in Iraq is historically very low, as if this would quell any doubts we have about the wisdom of "staying the course." I'm surprised that this McNamara-esque focus on body counts has been wheeled into service again, so many decades after it was totally discredited.

But I digress...

Did you see Saving Private Ryan? In the movie, Tom Hanks is ordered to take an entire platoon and rescue Private Ryan, the last surviving son of a family that had already lost several other sons in battle. Along the way, the platoon suffers enormous losses. And at one point Hanks' character says this:

This Ryan had better be worth it-- he better go home and cure some disease or invent a longer-lasting light bulb.

Later, with his dying breath, he says the same thing to Ryan himself. It haunts Ryan for the rest of his life.

So, the real question isn't how many tens of thousands of people, soldiers and civilians, have shed their blood to this day. The real question isn't how many hundreds of billions of dollars of our treasure have been spent.

The real question is, "Will the result in Iraq have been worth it?"

I can hear some of you saying, of course it was worth it -- Saddam needed to be taken out. And I would agree -- the world is better off without him.

But there's more to it than just toppling a dictator.

Lincoln, at Gettysburg, said this, in consecrating the memory of those who fell in battle:

...[W]e here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.

I hope the Iraqi people can pull this off, but knowing what I know about their constitution I'm not optimistic, to say the least. Of course, in one sense, that's their business -- the Iraqi people deserve whatever government they choose.

But please don't forget: we bought that constitution for them with our blood and treasure. And that's why I feel pretty strongly that what we got was not worth it, whether the death toll was 2 soldiers, or 20, or 200, or 2,000 or 20,000.

Having come to this, I have to conclude that it was a gigantic, tragic boondoggle.

Not only that --

If it turns out (as I believe) that Bush lied or exaggerated in making the argument for war, if it turns out (as I believe) that he spun the facts to sell his case, if it turns out (as I believe) that senior White House officials attempted to destroy their "enemies" in order to pave the road to Iraq, then we must conclude that this administration betrayed the public trust, and Bush has diminished the credibility of his office and our country.

And then we'll know the bitter truth: that what we lost was far, far, far more valuable than what we gained.

Do you think Bush is acting from a position of strength or a position of weakness right now?

It has quite a bearing on who he'll nominate next.

If he's strong, he nominates a wingnut like Janice Rogers Brown. If he's weak, he nominates another stealth candidate or even a sitting (or former) US Senator (e.g., Danforth, Sessions).

None of this happens in a vacuum, of course. If the CIA leak investigation folds its tent tomorrow, Bush is much stronger. If Rove and/or Libby, et. al., are indicted, he's weaker.

What do you think?

Believe it or not, I have no idea what the Steve Gilliard story is all about. I've been out of the loop for most of the day today. Also, the whole Harriet Miers thing (not to mention the CIA leak investigation thing) has pretty much sucked all the oxygen out of the sphere since this morning.

I do occasionally read Steve Gilliard's web log. I glanced at a post on his site today, after seeing something posted on Atrios' site. But honestly, I couldn't understand what the hell Gilliard was talking about -- it was written that badly. It must not have been the original post?

So, please feel free to fill me in -- I might just surprise you with my reaction.

Batten down the hatches. Godzilla might be on the way.

Or not.

P.S. Is Bush that much of a pussy that he caved to the likes of David Frum and George Will? I think not. I think he caved because no one was willing to fight FOR Harriet Miers. Nor, apparently, was anyone willing to fight for Bush himself, either.

Like Truman said, if you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

(HT to billmon)

The only thing we did wrong,
Stayed in the wilderness a day too long.
But the one thing we did right,
Was the day we started to fight.
Keep your eyes on the prize, hold on, hold on.

(HT to billmon)

If Patrick Fitzgerald hands down any indictments in the CIA leak investigation, the nomination of U.S. Attorney Paul McNulty for the number-two job at the Justice Department might turn out to be a very important development.

UPDATE: Tim Russert observed this morning that an indictment of a sitting White House official, if it happens, would be the first in 130 years. Hmmm...1875. That would be during the Ulysses S. Grant Administration:

Grant's presidency was plagued with scandals...The most famous scandal was the Whiskey Ring fraud in which over $3 million in taxes were taken from the federal government. Orville E. Babcock, the private secretary to the President, was indicted as a member of the ring and escaped conviction only because of a presidential pardon.

End of today's history lesson.

I recently came across this and I thought I should pass it along.

This website has consolidated multiple state databases under an obscure section of the Patriot Act. The bottom line? Now you can see anyone's driver's license on the Internet -- name, address, license number, even a scan of your driver's license photo.

I tried it with my name and address and also on my son's (which is in another state), so it works across at least two states anyway.

It really pissed me off.

Luckily there is a way that you can remove your license from the database, although I think it still is available to law enforcement officials. I removed mine and I suggest you do the same. Go to the web site right now and check it out. Just enter your name, city and state to see if yours is on file. After your license comes on the screen, click the box marked "Please Remove".

Holy Cow!

Click to see a larger version of the graph.

Quck refresher: If you bought one "Harriet Miers confirmation" contract at 63 (say, 10 days ago) and she did win confirmation, that contract would close, or settle, at 100. Your profit would be 37 points x 10¢ per point or $3.70. If, however, you reckon she's toast, and you sell her stock in time, you come out unscathed.

As of COB on Friday, as you can see, volume is up sharply while the stock price is plummeting. In other words, lots of traders are unloading Harriet Miers at almost any price.

UPDATE: Apparently the White House is now making contingency plans for withdrawing her nomination.

So, if that happens, do you think Janice Rogers Brown (or her equal) gets the nod? And if so, should we conclude that the wingnuts were finally appeased?

John Dean has been around the block a few times. Now, he's written a balanced and thoughtful article about what might happen next week in the Plame investigation's denoument:

It is difficult to envision Patrick Fitzgerald prosecuting anyone, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, who believed they were acting for reasons of national security. While hindsight may find their judgment was wrong, and there is no question their tactics were very heavy-handed and dangerous, I am not certain that they were acting from other than what they believed to be reasons of national security. They were selling a war they felt needed to be undertaken.

In short, I cannot imagine any of them being indicted, unless they were acting for reasons other than national security. Because national security is such a gray area of the law, come next week, I can see this entire investigation coming to a remarkable anti-climax, as Fitzgerald closes down his Washington Office and returns to Chicago.

In short, I think the frenzy is about to end -- and it will not go any further. Unless, of course, these folks were foolish enough to give false statements, perjure themselves or suborn perjury, or commit obstruction of justice. If they were so stupid, Patrick Fitzgerald must stay and clean house.

So, for all of you who are chilling the champagne -- you better chill yourselves for now. Remember: everyone was sure Kerry had the election in the bag as late at midafternoon of election day.

I'll be the first one to cheer when Rove resigns in disgrace. But just because you want it, you believe it, you taste it, you feel it, that doesn't make it so.

Like Mick and Keith said: you can't always get what you want.

P.S. Everyone is expecting Fitzgerald to be slimed if he indicts any White House insiders. But mightn't the same thing happen if he declines to indict? I'm just saying.

P.P.S. That said, a "Libby Indictment" contract closed yesterday at 79 cents and a "Rove Indictment" contract closed at 60 cents, both up sharply, although the trading volume for Libby contracts was about 50% higher than Rove's. In short, If you bought a Rove contract at 60 and he gets indicted, that contract will close, or settle, at 100. Your profit will be 40 points x 10¢ per point or $4.00. Same goes for Libby. So it's clear that traders think both are getting indicted with Libby more of a lock than Rove.

I've been pretty busy at work and haven't had a lot of time to post anything much for a couple of days. But I do have one question: who is in charge at the White House?

Doesn't it seem like they're just making it up as they go along?

For example, the Harriet Miers nomination should be a lock -- yet it has devolved into one pratfall after another. In the CIA leak investigation, the rats are gnawing each other to death in order to scramble free of Patrick Fitzgerald. Rove has hunkered down. "Dick" Cheney is AWOL. Only Tom DeLay seems to have maintained a stiff upper lip. G. Gordon Liddy would be proud.

Trial balloons are everywhere!

Miss Julie and I tried, we really tried, to stay awake long enough to watch Jon Stewart AND Stephen Colbert last night on Comedy Central. But, alas, it was past our bedtime and we both conked out early.

However, this morning, I was able to find this snippet from the debut of The Colbert Report:

Anybody who knows me knows that I am no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They're elitist for constantly telling us what is or isn't true, what did or didn't happen...

I don't trust books. They're all fact and no heart. And that's exactly what's pulling our country apart today. Because face it, folks, we are a divided nation... We are divided by those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.

Consider Harriett Miers. If you think about Harriett Miers, of course her nomination's absurd! But the President didn't say he thought about this selection, he said this:

President Bush: "I know her heart."

Notice that he didn't say anything about her brain? He didn't have to. He feels the truth about Harriett Miers. And what about Iraq? If you think about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rationale for war. But doesn't taking Saddam out feel like the right thing...right here in the gut? Because that's where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen...the gut.

Did you know that you have more nerve endings in your stomach than in your head? Look it up. Now, somebody's gonna say `I did look that up and its wrong'. Well, Mister, that's because you looked it up in a book. Next time, try looking it up in your gut. I did. And my gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.

Now I know some of you may not trust your gut...yet. But with my help you will. The "truthiness" is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news...at you.

This is a great example of why you should leave humor to the professionals...like Stephen Colbert.

Yesterday, I caught a snippet of a TV photo-op of Bush with some foreign dignitary in the Oval Office.

The sound was off when I saw the video; and/but the thing that jumped out at me was that it appeared that Bush had been crying. Can't put my finger on it, beyond that. It just .... looked and felt that way to me.

From Newsweek's Conventional Wisdom:

Bush (down-arrow): Even his photo ops are flops. And 2 percent approval among blacks puts him below Jefferson Davis.

Ouch.

In other news:

• The Times and Judy Miller produce their long-awaited pieces about PlameGate. The bottom line? Mixed -- Miller is saying that she stayed in jail for 85 days to protect a source whose name she can't remember. Hmmm.

• As if in response to this news, Intrade's stock price for a "Libby Indictment contract" shot up to 89 cents this morning. Rove's is at 62 cents. Remember -- the higher the price, the less profit you make if they get indicted.

• Also at Intrade, a "Harriet Miers confirmation contract" is holding steady at 62 cents.

• ...and in Iraq, it looks like the Iraqi Constitution passed, although it's not clear what that means in the long run.

This is the first full day off I've had since September 18. I'm going outside to build our Sukkah. Shanah Tovah!

Maybe you're like me -- you've heard that iPods can play video and you thought, "So what? Who wants to watch a 2-1/2" screen? Not me. Shoot -- just buy a hand-held TV -- what's so new about that?"

But hear me out.

The next time you're about to kick back and watch your favorite TV show, try this simple experiment.

You'll need:

• A ruler
• A couch
• A TV set

OK? Let's begin:

1. Get comfortable on the couch.
2. Turn on the TV (or not -- just get where you can see the screen).
3. Hold up the ruler between you and the TV screen, placing the ruler as close to normal, comfortable, reading distance from your eyes as you can.
4. Reading the ruler, measure the size of the screen.
5. Write down the measurement.

If you're like most people, the screen will appear to measure approximately 2-1/2" by 2-1/2"...

...which, not by coincidence, is the size of the video image on an iPod. Cool!

But that's the least of it. There's more...

Apple has secured a source of downloadable programming: music videos and network TV shows from Disney and ABC. And it has a distribution channel -- the iTunes store. And the price is right -- $1.99 per download, less than the cost of a rental at Blockbuster. And this stuff is available now. If you missed last night's episode of Lost, it's there for download. The next morning.

Grab it and go. Watch it on the plane, in the car, in line at the bank, in the carpool line at school, waiting to pick up the kids.

But there's more to it than that...

In a time when box-office revenues for first-run movies are minscule compared to the DVD sales revenue, might it be too much to think that download revenues for next-day delivery of TV shows might similarly swamp traditional advertising revenues from network and/or cable TV? This won't happen overnight, but think about it: when you go to see a movie in the theater, you are essentially watching a commercial for the DVD release. Why couldn't it work the same way for TV and downloadable programming?

Look at it like this...

A show is considered a flop if it "only" has 3-5-7 million viewers on network TV. What if only a fraction of that number of people download episodes at $1.99 a pop for each episode? You do the math -- you're talking serious money, especially if the show doesn't have a real high cost of production. Add on the inevitable lead-in commercial (ever watch episodes of The Daily Show online?) and you've got another source of revenue as well. Eventually the owner of the show could leverage this kind of audience into something much bigger, much faster than before.

Not only that -- no FCC, no Standards and Practices, no network weasels.

Hmmm.

Will it mean just more of the same -- More half-hour sitcoms? More one-hour series dramas? In the short run, maybe. I don't know. But that's the beauty of it -- in this system, content is freer to respond to the market than before. It will evolve in response to what people buy, not in response to ambiguous Nielsen ratings, not what a network programming executive decides, not what an advertiser demands.

If you're a young filmmaker, this will be an exciting time for you. It won't be the daunting long shot for a young filmmaker to get his or her work in front of a large audience. Up to now, young (and not-so-young) filmmakers can only hope that their films will be seen at scattered film festivals around the country. In this new framework, a filmmaker who is also good at Internet direct marketing can establish an audience almost overnight. Think JibJab.

The next five years will be very exciting.

P.S. Right now, Apple has a headstart. But if I'm Sony with my PSP, I'm looking for content and distribution partners to leverage my existing PSP brand.

P.P.S. And who says you have to stop at downloads onto an iPod? What about using iTunes to download to your plasma TV?

P.P.S. And remember...we haven't even touched on what this might mean to movies. I have to think Apple is busy on that one too.

(HT to Mark Cuban)

Can Dems agree that is is a huge mistake to slide around on the spectrum looking for a "sweet spot" that will get the most votes? Can we stop trying to find the "right formula" for a Presidential candidate?

The Dems have tried that -- it doesn't work. They've also tried writing off large parts of the South and focusing on certain other parts of the country. They've come periously close to abandoning their long, proud tradition of being a national party.

Is there any good news, you ask? Yes. Here it is:

Mainstream Democratic core values are already accepted by a majority of voters in this country and have been (even post-Reagan) for decades and decades.

Of course there is some bad news too:

People are not clear about which party truly represents and is committed to (and has the deepest and most authentic feelings about) these values.

Think about it: on a whole range of important issues -- education, health care, right to privacy, old age insurance, the environment, the First Amendment -- the majority of people already favor the historically Democratic position.

But Republicans are smart. They understand that by using focus-tested words (e.g., "The Ownership Society.") they can co-opt voters' loyalties to these policy positions and get the votes they need to do what they REALLY want to do (e.g., dismantle Social Security).

Oh, what's that you say? Americans are not so dumb as to be fooled by a few fancy buzzwords? You're right -- Americans are not dumb. We're smart. We usually get it right.

It's the Democrats who are dumb. And weak. And the result? In the schoolyard, we called it "letting the other guy eat your lunch."

Here's the thing: if people really wanted what the Republicans were selling, the Republicans wouldn't have to hide the true nature of their product. They would sell it straight up. Of course, the Republicans will never do that. So people, you have to do the heavy lifting: you actually have to watch what they do, not what they say.

So Democrats, wake up, stand up, and fight for what you already believe in. Lots and lots of voters are already on your side, if only they knew you were there.

Psst -- JibJab nails Wal-Mart. Pass it on...

(to the tune of Oh, Susanna!)

The next day at the factory the news was very grim,
My job was being outsourced to the slums of East Beijing,
Management was steamlining the company's org chart,
They gotta make crap cheap enough to sell to Big Box Mart!
Oh Big Box Mart, look what you've done to me,
[I've] gotta start all over at the age of fifty-three.

JibJab -- What you get when you cross Tom Lehrer with Looney Tunes.

P.S. Two-thirds of the people in this picture are either going to, or coming from, Wal-Mart.

My world and welcome to it:

Businesses say that so far, impact has been more negative than positive.

P.S. That's me, third from left.

Intrade is a trading exchange for politics, current events, financial Indicators, weather & other unique contracts.

Here's an example of how it works: If you bought one "Harriet Miers confirmation" contract at 63 and she does win confirmation, that contract will close, or settle, at 100. Your profit will be 37 points x 10¢ per each point or $3.70.

So...as of 1600 hrs. on Wednesday, October 12, 2005, as far as Intrade traders are concerned, Harriet Miers is still a strong favorite to win confirmation, but traders are increasingly pessimistic about her likely prospects. (Click the image to see a larger version of it.)

So...right about now, knowing what you know (or don't know) about Harriet Miers, would you buy or sell?

From Clark Howard, via Lifehacker (one of my favorite blogs):

1. Cars
2. Houses
3. Kids’ clothing and toys
4. Musical instruments
5. CDs and DVDs

Show of hands: How many of you have bought something used from all five categories?

Care to add any other categories to the list?

[ Note: My subscription has expired. Sorry -- no more free Carfax checks. ]

I've got a couple of weeks left on a 30-day subscription to CarFax. If you are interested in checking out a used car, email me at ara[at]rubyan[dot]com. I'll take requests from the next 10 people who contact me. Just put CARFAX in the subject line.

I wish I'd had this the other night, after midnight, when I got home, I wanted to unwind and I could NOT find the remote.

Heh. I'm just saying.

P.S. I love you.

Sorry to go over this again, but it is pretty amazing.

Step back for a moment and imagine what history will say about Bush choosing Miers. Here's the short version:

A vacancy opens up on the Supreme Court and the President picks...his personal lawyer?

You're kidding, right?

P.S. Peggy Noonan scratches her head, joining George Will, Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol, Michelle Malkin! and Ann Coulter!! in wondering what the hell he was thinking.

No matter -- the whole point is to lower the bar far enough so Harriet Miers can simply step over it. Think about it: on the first day of the confirmation hearings, all she has to do is recite the alphabet and she's in.

Lately, I've stayed away from writing about all the Karl Rove-Scooter-Libby-Judy-Miller-Patrick-Fitzgerald-related scuttlebutt on the Internets. Fact is, we just don't know what's going to happen next.

But that doesn't mean you can't read about it if you want.

The most interesting stuff is coming from Emptywheel, who lashes together all the loose ends and conjurs up a pretty entertaining (though speculative) narrative today.

All I can say is, "Oh, Doctor!"

The following two passages are from two of my favorite writers. Can you guess who they are?

"Because the only people for me are the mad ones, the ones who are mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace things, but burn like fabulous roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue center light pop and everybody goes 'AWWW!' "

Bonus points if you can name the book this came from. No fair googling.

Here's a quote from the second writer:

"Look, I don't want to wax philosophic, but I will say that if you're alive you've got to flap your arms and legs, you've got to jump around a lot, for life is the very opposite of death, and therefore you must at very least think noisy and colorfully, or you're not alive."

Can you name this author?

We're into Day 4 of the Miers nomination and (despite complaints from right-wing intelligensia) the odds are very strong that she'll be confirmed. Shy of a few votes on the GOP side of the aisle (Brownback, Allen, Lott, etc.) she'll get the Gang of 14 plus more than a few Democrats. So, she's there.

Am I unhappy about that? Actually, it doesn't matter what I feel. It is what it is. This is why you need to win Presidential elections, why you need to be a part of the Senate majority.

What's interesting to me are the comments from the right-wing intelligensia, thoughtful guys like George Will, Bill Kristol and David Frum. These are people with principles (few of which I agree with), articulate people, people that you'd want to have dinner with, if for no other reason than to yell at them and smash some crockery after you'd had a few too many drinks.

Charles Krauthammer is not quite in their league, simply because he has a dismaying tendency to abuse his status as a psychiatrist and diagnose public figures from afar in his writing, to make a political point. I won't forget what he said about Al Gore, Howard Dean and God-knows-who-else. Someone should report him to whatever disciplinary board there is in the Fraternal Order of Psynchiatric Medicine, if only there were such a thing.

But I digress...

Today, Krauthammer actually made a good point in opposing Miers' confirmation, specifically addressing the ridiculous right-wing spin that accuses her detractors of being elitists:

[T]his is not about the Ivy League. The issue is not the venue of Miers's constitutional scholarship, experience and engagement. The issue is their nonexistence.

Moreover, the Supreme Court is an elite institution. It is not one of the "popular" branches of government. That is the reason Sen. Roman Hruska achieved such unsought immortality when he declared, in support of an undistinguished Nixon nominee to the court, that, yes, G. Harrold Carswell is a mediocrity but mediocre Americans deserve representation on the court as well.

To serve in Congress, or even as president, there is no requirement for scholarship and brilliance. For good reason. It is not needed. It can even be a hindrance, as we learned from our experience with Woodrow Wilson, the most intellectually accomplished president of the 20th century and also the worst.

But constitutional jurisprudence is different. It is, by definition, an exercise of intellect steeped in scholarship. Otherwise it is nothing but raw politics. And is it not the conservative complaint that liberals have abused the courts by having them exercise raw super-legislative power, the most egregious example of which is the court's most intellectually bankrupt ruling, Roe v. Wade ?

Miers will surely shine in her Judiciary Committee hearings, but that is because expectations have been set so low. If she can give a fairly good facsimile of John Roberts's testimony, she'll be considered a surprisingly good witness. But what does she bring to the bench?

It's part of our nation's Judeo-Christian ethic that judges be learned men and women. It's part of our tradition that SCOTUS justices be steeped in the traditions of our law. We expect them to apply their valuable insight and perspective (if not wisdom) when measuring difficult questions of law against the text that they are entrusted to protect: the US Constitution.

Does Harriet Miers have that experience? That insight, that perspective, that wisdom? Nothing in her background or experience suggests that. That's why, if I were a Senator who honors the standards and traditions of our nation, that's why I would vote no on Miers.

Too bad I'm not voting. Too bad she's destined to be confirmed. She'll end up being a mistake, one we'll all have to live with for many, many years to come.

From CBS News, poll taken 10/3-5.
Margin of Error = 3.5%
(9/9-13 results in parenthesis)

Bush approval ratings, Overall:

Approve 37 (41)
Disapprove 58 (53)

That's a net of minus 9 since the announcement of Harriet Miers' nomination -- and in case you're wondering, it's not Democrats who are unhappy with Bush this time.

"Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, Hide the Salami, or whatever it's called."

--Howard Dean on Hardball

(HT to Bill in Portland Maine)

I liked this so much, I'm reposting it in its entirety:

Detroit Driving Tips for our Superbowl Guests

1. First, you must learn to pronounce the city name. It's Deh-troit. NOT DEE-troit. If you pronounce it DEE-Troit then we will assume you are from Toledo and here for the country Music hoe-down.

2. Forget the traffic rules you learned elsewhere. Detroit has its own version of traffic rules... Hold on and pray!

3. The morning rush hour is from 6:00 am to 10:00 am. The evening rush hour is from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm. Friday's rush hour starts Thursday morning. Weekends are open game.

4. If you actually stop at a yellow light, you will be rear-ended, cussed out and possibly shot. If you're first off the starting line when the light turns green, count to five before going across the intersection. This will avoid getting in the way of cross-traffic who just ran their yellow light to keep from getting shot.

5. Schoenherr can ONLY be properly pronounced by a native of the Detroit metro area. That goes for Gratiot too.

   [Hint: "Shay-ner" and "Grash-it". Bonus points if you can prounounce "Livernois" and "Lahser"]

6. Construction and renovation on I-94, I-96, I-75, I-275, I-375, The Lodge and The Southfield Freeways are a way of life and forever. Just deal with it.

7. If someone actually has their turn signal on, it is probably a factory defect or they are "out-of-towners"

8. All old men (or women) with white hair wearing a hat have total right-of-way.

9. The minimum acceptable speed on I-696 and I-275 is 85 regardless of the posted speeds. Anything less is considered downright SISSY. Oh, and don't even think of allowing more than one car length between cars!

10. That attractive wrought iron on the windows and doors in Detroit is NOT ornamental. DO NOT get out of your car to take pictures.

11. Never stare at the driver of the car with the bumper sticker that says "Keep honking, I'm reloading" -- he/she is.

12. If you are in the left lane, and only going 70 in a 60 mph zone, people are not waving because they are so friendly in Detroit. I would suggest you duck.

13. I-275 and I-696 is our daily version of NASCAR.

    [Note: I-275 is so named because that's the speed limit...]

14. It's not M-10, it's "the Lodge".

15. That's not a lake, it's a pothole.

16. If someone tells you it's on Outer Drive, you better hope you have a map.

17. The Michigan left turn is simple. If you want to turn left, go a 1/4 of a mile past your turn, get to the left, then make a left, then make another left, then make a right when you get back to the intersection where you wanted to turn left in the first place. NOW you have gone left.

18. And those 2 really ugly arches over Telegraph???? DON'T EVEN ASK!! WE DON'T HAVE A CLUE!!!!!

WELCOME, ENJOY YOUR STAY, BUT AVOID EYE-CONTACT WITH THE LOCALS

Ain't that the truth.

When Harriet Miers was quoted by David Frum as saying, "George W. Bush is the most brilliant man I've ever met," you knew the die was cast -- Harriet Miers is a lightweight.

But perhaps it will work in her favor. Think about it: all Miers has to do now is show up for her confirmation hearings and recite the alphabet. Republicans and Democrats will hail her brilliance and she'll be confirmed -- maybe not with Roberts-like numbers, but all the conservatives will eat their words. Especially when they learn more about her being born again in the early 80's:

Some religious conservatives have expressed deep dissatisfaction with the Miers nomination, grumbling that she has never taken public stands on hot-button social issues. But her friends point to Valley View as evidence that she is cut from conservative cloth. They say she's not a "holy roller" who flaunts her religion on her sleeve but she lives her faith as a born-again Christian.

"People in Dallas know she's a conservative," said her friend Ed Kinkeade, a federal district judge. "She's not Elmer Gantry, but she lives what she believes. . . .

Oh, goody. Miers is not Elmer Gantry. Not exactly a ringing endorsement, but perhaps enough to allow ambivalent conservatives some wiggle room to come around on her nomination.

Still, others are suggesting that after all the build-up, Miers' nomination may go the way of Bernard Kerik's, sinking irretrievably after it was revealed that Kerik was a lightweight and a crony, and most memorably compared to Caligula's horse.

My hunch is that they better schedule her confirmation hearing date for, like, yesterday, because the trendlines on her support among the party faithful is sliding downwards.

They've lowered the bar -- now she has to hurry up and step over it before it's too late.

Over the last several days, Rove has been conspicuous by his absence at functions he always attends.

Could this be a crack in the Matrix?

From The Late Show With David Letterman

10. Lost 10 grand yesterday in the 'case' of Jets vs. Ravens

9. Spends most of her time trying to fit the gavel into her mouth

8. Her legal mentor: Oliver Wendell Redenbacher

7. Asks courtroom stenographer to, 'Quit that annoying tapping!'

6. Instead of Constitutional law books, consults set of 'Garfield' paperbacks

5. Keeps shouting, 'When does mama get to hang somebody?!'

4. When Scalia walks by, she pretends to cough and says, 'Rogaine'

3. Authored the book: 'I'm Not Qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice'

2. The closest thing to courtroom experience was being an extra on 'Matlock'

...and the #1 Sign that your Supreme Court pick isn't qualified:

1. Glowing letter of recommendation from former FEMA director Michael Brown

Democrats who can't figure out what to do about the war in Iraq would do well to try to put themselves in the shoes of the average American, someone who isn't a political junkie, someone who doesn't read web logs, someone who just wants to work their job, play by the rules, make ends meet. What do Dems say to them?

Arquebus offers some insight:

The war in Iraq is not unpopular because it's immoral. Most Americans don't not support the war because of the lack of WMD's. They don't support it because we're losing.

If we'd won the war by now, most Americans wouldn't care about much else. Winning in Iraq would certainly be significant, so significant that it would, in most Americans' minds, put all the war-related controversy to bed once and for all.

Think about it: were we really justified to go into Lebanon? Panama? Somalia? Granada? But we either won in those places or got out before we really lost. Ergo, most American's can't find those places on a map.

No wonder the Dems are deer-in-the-headlights paralyzed: they do NOT want to be "the party that lost the war in Iraq." Because that's what they'd be if they are the ones who are in office when the whole thing finally collapses.

On the other hand, Bush already has a strategy: just keep denying that we're losing. He understands that he who says we're losing is, in fact, the loser.

What to do if you want to be declared the winner? Declare victory and bring the boys home. You know someone will. The only question is who. Right now I'm betting on Bush. His timing is usually pretty good. He understands that politics is like a seesaw. Sometimes you're up, sometimes you're down. But the winner is the one who gets off at the right time.

Tom DeLay has been indicted for the second time in one week, by a different grand jury, this time for money laundering.

Who saw this coming?

P.S. This has the effect of "stepping on" the Miers nomination during today's news cycle.

The Cheney gambit works...again!

Some points to ponder:

1. Some are saying Miers is cut from the same cloth as Condi and Karen -- she has been quoted as saying Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever met. Harriet, in your world, what color is the sky?

2. For those expecting a Scalia or a Thomas (hello Sen. Brownback?), will they get whiplash doing an about-face? She's the classic stealth candidate -- no record, no known agenda, in fact she's never even been a judge. And/but during the years she was Bush's personal lawyer, she gained a reputation as "a pit bull in size 6 shoes." Not sure that it means she's another Scalia or Thomas, but even if she is...

3. ...It's hard to imagine the Dems fighting this pick. Fact is, this choice was designed to avoid a fight. That said, it's hard to imagine the Dems fighting any pick. They're like the baseball team that announces (on the eve of Game 1 of the World Series) that the opening game isn't really that important--instead, they're focusing really, really, hard to win Game 2. Losers.

P.S. Apparently, once upon a time (1988) Miers made a campaign contribution to Al Gore. Oy.

Having survived two hurricanes in one month, I've found new appreciation in Churchill's famous remark about his experience in the Boer War: "There is nothing so exhilarating as to be shot at without effect."

IJS.

Three car bombs in succession: First Iraq, then Bali.

Joe Conason:

Consider Jack Abramoff, once the prince of K Street lobbyists and a dedicated right-wing ideologue who boasted of his powerful connections to DeLay, Karl Rove, Grover Norquist and the entire Republican apparatus in Washington. [Note: Don't forget Ralph Reed, formerly of the Christian Coalition, and currently running for Lt. Governor of Georgia.]

Already under investigation by the Justice Department for his influence peddling among House members, including DeLay, and his swindling of Indian tribes, Abramoff was indicted last month for bank fraud in a separate South Florida case involving a casino boat company that he partly owned.

The fraud allegedly committed by Abramoff and his business partner Adam Kidan involved a phony wire transfer they used to purchase a controlling interest in SunCruz from the company's founder, Konstantinos "Gus" Boulis, in 2001.

Abramoff and Kidan later fell out with Boulis in a bitter business dispute that turned violent. In February 2001, gunmen ambushed Boulis on a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., highway and shot him repeatedly. [Note: He, er, died.]

On Tuesday, Florida authorities arrested three New York men with mob connections for the Boulis killing. Two of the men -- Anthony Moscatiello and Tony Ferrari -- had received payments totaling more than $240,000 from Kidan and Abramoff.

Honest to gosh, that part of the story makes my skin crawl -- K Street lobbyist with friends in high places is implicated in a mob hit on a former business partner.

Rove, DeLay, Norquist, Reed -- they're all tied to Abramoff in one way or another. And they're all out of control.

During the midterm election cycle, if incumbent Democrats won't talk about this, maybe the challengers should.

P.S. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Abramoff is a Bush "Pioneer," responsible for raising at least $100,000 for the president last year.

Have you ever read anything by Daniel Boorstin? He's a terrific writer who has written many "popular history" books (The Discoverers, The Creators, The Seekers and some others) that are tremendously enlightening and entertaining as well.

Recently I came across this quote from Boorstin in an article written by Robert Frank in the Times:

Daniel Boorstin, the former librarian of Congress, used to rise at 5 each morning and write for two hours before going into the office.

"I write to discover what I think," he explained. "After all, the bars aren't open that early."

Mr. Boorstin's morning sessions were even more valuable than he realized. Writing not only clarifies what you already know; it is also an astonishingly effective way to learn something new.

It's why I'm here.

IJS.

(HT to Cunning Realist)