December 2005 Archives

Click the thumbnail for a larger image.

Remember Kagro X talking about Guerilla Marketing Impeachment?

He talked about how one person could reach one million people with a simple message: "IMPEACH."

OK, kids. This thing is getting big:

• Kagro X Impeach Campaign

• IMPEACH Wiki

• 1067 Freeway Blogger Group Members (and counting) in 15 Regional Groups

Freeway blogging. Heh.

A Manifesto:

This will dominate the next few news cycles.

But Don't. Take. Your Eye. Off the Ball.

No one is above the law -- not the terrorists, not the leakers, not the President of the United States.

No one.

P.S. If Pat Fitzgerald didn't have his hands full investigating the unauthorized leak of a CIA agent's identity, I'd say give him this investigation too.

IJS.

After weeks of relentless campaigning on the war, the results are not good:

Bush's approval rating -- which measures how well the public believes a president is doing his job and is different from his favorability rating -- stood at 41 percent [down from 42] while more than half, or 56 percent, disapprove of how the president is handling his job.

[...]

In the latest survey, Bush earned an unfavorable rating from 53 percent of respondents.

A majority do not approve, a majority have an unfavorable opinion.

And the fall-out from the warrant-less snooping scandal hasn't even begun to dawn on people yet.

Recently I asked this question:

During wartime, what is the President's most important job -- preserve, protect and defend the American people or the US Constitution?

I admit it was a softball question. If you know your Constitution, you know that the President is sworn to uphold the US Constitution. It's right there in his oath of office. The framers felt so strongly about this that they actually put the oath right in the Constitution:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Despite that, I got my answer:

[The President's most important job is] protecting the American people. No question. The Constitution is just paper. People are important. Laws are only laws.

Yes. Well. So much for government of the people, by the people and for the people.

But that's the crux of the warrant-less snooping scandal isn't it? Bush claims that he has broad (unlimited!) powers simply because he is the Commander in Chief and he's "protecting the people." Never mind that there is a good case to be made that he broke the FISA warrant law, he violated the Fourth Amendment as well as Article II of the (just-paper?) Constitution. And, I might add, never mind that he twisted the facts on WMD to get us into the war in the first place. Once we're there, he has unlimited power! See how that works? But don't get me started.

Robert Steinbeck weighs in:

Never would I have expected this nation -- which emerged stronger from a civil war and a civil rights movement, won two world wars, endured the Depression, recovered from a disastrous campaign in Southeast Asia and still managed to lead the world in the principles of liberty -- would cower behind anyone just for promising to ``protect us.''

There's a reason the US Constitution is the oldest and most robust system of governance in world history: it works. And it works because the framers understood that no man is above the law. They created a complex system of checks and balances so that the Executive could not become a despot, a dictator, or a king.

Read the Declaration of Independence. Much of it is a recitation of grievances against just such a despot. The Framers were mindful of the threat that such absolute power entailed and made sure they did everything they could to avoid that from occuring in the future.

But, 229 years later, here we are: A large portion of the population believes that Bush should be above the law. A large portion of the population believes that the Constitution is "just paper," and that "laws are just laws." A large portion of the population believes Bush and is happy to cower behind him just for promising to ``protect us.''

Make no mistake: without the Constitution, all we have is a cult of personality. Instead of the Constitutionally limited Chief Executive, we have "Dear Leader." And the only difference between us and North Korea is that we have more food, better TV, and cooler cars.

At least for a while.

Jack Cafferty (click the picture, left, to watch the video):

Who cares if the Patriot Act gets renewed. Want to abuse our civil liberties-Just do it!

Who cares about the Geneva conventions? Want to torture prisoners-Just do it!

Who cares about rules concerning the identity of CIA agents. Want to reveal the name of a covert operative? Just do it!

Who cares about whether the intelligence concerning WMD's is accurate. You want to invade Iraq? Just do it.

Who cares about qualifications to serve on the nation's highest court. Want to nominate a personal friend with no qualifications? Just do it.

And the latest outrage, which I read about in "The New York Times" this morning, who cares about needing a court order to eavesdrop on American citizens. Want to wiretap their phones conversations? Just do it....

What a joke. A very cruel, very sad joke.

During wartime, what is the President's most important job -- preserve, protect and defend the American people or the US Constitution?

This falls under the category of "Questions Whose Answers Are Just Too Bleedin Obvious:"

Sixty-four percent (64%) of Americans believe the National Security Agency (NSA) should be allowed to intercept telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the United States. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that just 23% disagree.

Duh.

Would it surprise you to know that I consider myself part of that 64%? Would it also surprise you to know that I also believe that the President broke the law and should be punished for doing so?

The fact is, the poll question is bogus: who doesn't want to catch the terrorists?

Here's the thing: that isn't even the issue at hand.

If we're really going to do a poll on the issue, I'd like Rasmussen to ask this poll question:

Do you believe the President should be allowed to break any law he so chooses while intercepting telephone conversations between terrorism suspects in other countries and people living in the US?

If anyone sees a poll on that question, I'd like to see the results.

The Brookings Institution is getting nervous for Democrats:

"I get nervous when I see the Democrats playing this [civil liberties] issue out too far. They had better be careful about the politics of it," said Mr. O'Hanlon, who says the Patriot Act is "good legislation."

He's nervous? I'm sure he is, because he's a loser.

Here's the thing: the Patriot Act can and must be made better, but not by pussies like O'Hanlon. He'd give up his liberties in return for "assurances" from Bush that Bush would protect him.

I'll be blunt: if Democrats think they can win by becoming "more like Republicans," they'll deserve to lose in 2006.

Democrats need to wake up and realize that there is a clear choice, a patriot's choice when it comes to security versus liberty.

Voters already know what the right side, the American side, of this issue is. They only need to be reminded of it. And, IMHO, the majority of voters will vote for the candidate(s) who comes down on the right side of this issue.

If you haven't already figured out what the right side of this issue is, read on.

The choices have already been laid out for those of you who have been paying attention:

“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and close ally of the president who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

“Give me liberty or give me death,” said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who has led a bipartisan filibuster against a reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

Voters can smell this one a mile away: Cornyn is the whiny appeaser; Feingold is the fiery patriot.

Any questions?

According Pew Research Center, there are actually 9 categories that Americans fall into politically:

ON THE RIGHT:
1. Enterprisers

2. Social Conservatives

3. Pro-Government Conservatives

IN THE MIDDLE:
1. Upbeats

2. Disaffecteds

3. Bystanders

AND ON THE LEFT:
1. Liberals

2. Disadvantaged Democrats

3. Conservative Democrats

Take the 25-question test here to see which category you fall into. Surprise! I'm a liberal.

The most informative page of all details each issue and the strength of belief within each of the 9 categories.

(HT to Rippe)

Welcome to South Dakota:

1. There is only one abortion clinic in the state. It operates only once a week. Sometimes Monday, sometimes Wednesday, depending on when an abortion doctor flies in to the state.

2. An anti-choice task force is successfully lobbying for a law "requiring that a woman watch an ultrasound of her fetus, that doctors warn women about the psychological and physical dangers of abortion, and that women receive psychological counseling before the abortion, among other measures."

3. The procedure costs $450. The state refuses to pay any of it, even in cases of rape or incest..By the way, South Dakota is home to the poorest counties in the nation.

4. Some women in the state have to travel 700 miles in one day to get the procedure done.

5. It's not just abortions. The laws also apply to the RU-486 pill.

6. A law, currently blocked by Planned Parenthood, requires the doctor tell the woman prior to the procedure that "abortion ends the life of a whole, separate, unique living human being."

And by the way, South Dakota is one of several states with a "trigger law," which will make abortion illegal the minute Roe is overturned.

But wait, there's more:

For those who are ambivalent about a woman's right to choose, those who support the right only in cases of rape or incest, imagine being raped in South Dakota. Imagine having no money to pay for the trip hundreds of miles away, imagine not having enough money for the $450 procedure. Imagine telling the doctor you've been brutally raped, and the doctor telling you that the collection of cells inside you is not your rapist's mark, but a "unique living being." Imagine being forced to undergo an ultrasound. Is that exercising your right to choose? Or is it having obstacle after obstacle thrown in your way to make you change course?

(HT to georgia10)

...after all that, the high today will be 79. And sunny. In late December.

IJS.

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Government records show that the administration was encountering unprecedented second-guessing by the secret federal surveillance court when President Bush decided to bypass the panel and order surveillance of U.S.-based terror suspects without the court's approval.

Want to snoop but the court says no? Just do it anyway! After all, you're the wartime President.

The Federal minimum wage is currently $5.15. It has not changed for nine straight years (which coincides with the Republican takeover of Congress). Nine years is the second-longest period of no-growth in the minimum wage since it was established in 1938.

Today, conventional wisdom (i.e., the right-wing noise machine) says that a lower minimum wage is a good thing. A higher minimum wage cost jobs and hurt working class people. A higher minimum wage will cause employers to hesitate hiring a (legal) new employee if they have to pay "too much." And so forth.

Honestly, there hasn't been much of a pushback against those arguments. Until, perhaps, now:

Democrats are preparing ballot initiatives in states across the country to boost turnout of Democratic-leaning voters in 2006. Labor, religious, and community groups have launched efforts to place minimum-wage initiatives on ballots in Ohio, Michigan, Arizona, Colorado, Nevada, Arkansas, and Montana next fall.

Democrats say the minimum wage could be for them what the gay-marriage referendums were in key states for Republicans last year -- an easily understood issue that galvanizes their supporters to show up on Election Day.

Pro: Rewards upwardly mobile working people trying to live by the rules.
Con: Riles up red-state, red-meat capitalists (could be considered a pro).

Pro: May bring out new voters.
Con: May bring more opposing voters.

Pro: Highlights issues of justice, fairness.
Con: Says "socialistic" all over it in big block letters.

Pro: Democratic coat-tails
Con: Says who?

Who loves it: John Edwards.
Who hates it: Pointy-headed, right-wing, think-tank wonks. And Rush & Hannity.

I'm curious...what do you think of this idea?

• Is it the right thing to do, economically? If so, would it be a net benefit?

• Is it the right thing to do, strategically and tactically? If so, would it be a net benefit?

Tell me what you think. Ask around to your family and friends. Tell me what they think.

If you have a blog, link back to this post, or better yet post your own piece and tell me what the comments are like.

Happy Holidays to you and yours. Hope you can spend time with those you love.

(HT to Pat Oliphant)

By Charles Krauthammer
March 23, 2008

The past seven years have already been the age of the demagogue, having been dominated by the endlessly echoed falsehoods that the president has "violated the Constitution."

But today brings yet another round of demagoguery. Administration critics, political and media, charge that by running for a third term, the president has so trampled the Constitution that impeachment should now be considered. (Barbara Boxer, Jonathan Alter, John Dean and various luminaries of the left have already begun floating the idea.) The braying herds have already concluded, Tenet-, Powell-, Hegel-, Sununu-, and Kerry-like, that the president's running for a third term is slam-dunk illegal and unconstitutional.

It takes a superior mix of partisanship, animus and ignorance to say that.

From Think Progress:

The Department of Justice has released a memo defending President Bush’s warrantless domestic spying argument. There are two main arguments:

1. Any limitations FISA places on the President’s authority to issue warrantless domestic searches are unconstitutional, and
   
2. Congress gave the President authority to issue warrantless domestic searches

It doesn’t seem like the DOJ has their heart in the first argument. They devote just two paragraphs out of a five page memo to this point. Most of that space is filled by caselaw decided before FISA even became law, making it largely irrelevant since FISA speaks directly to warrantless spying on Americans and declares it illegal.

Like other defenders of the President’s program, they place considerable emphasis on a 2002 decision by the FISA Court of Appeals. There are two important things to remember about that case:

1. The FISA appeals court explicitly says it’s not addressing the issue (”It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority [to conduct warrantless searches]…The question before us is the reverse…”)
   
2. The FISA appeals court acknowledges the cases it mentions were decided before FISA and didn’t consider the statute (”We reiterate that Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance…it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…”)

In other words, there is a reason that the DOJ is giving short shrift to this argument. There is little evidence to substantiate it.

The rest of the memo is devoted to arguing that the 9/18/01 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against al-Qaeda authorized the President’s actions. This argument doesn’t hold water either:

1. The administration tried to get language inserted into the AUMF that would have authorized them to take actions “in the United States.” They failed. [Tom Daschle, 12/23/05]

2. Federal law says that “exclusive means” to conduct electronic surveillance is FISA and Title III (which governs the use of wiretaps by law enforcement). Relying on the AUMF, the administration concedes that neither of those two statutes were used. Federal law says that any surveillance that is not conducted under those two statues is illegal. [18 U.S.C. 2551(2)(f); 50 U.S.C. 1809(a)]

3. FISA has a limited exception that allows warrantless domestic wiretaps after a war is declared, but it only lasts 15 days. The Bush administration program has been going on for more than four years. [50 U.S.C. 1811]

The Justice Department advances two theories about why Bush’s warrantless domestic surveillance program was legal and both of them fail. The truth is simple: the program was illegal because it violated federal criminal law.

Recently, in a different place, someone expressed surprise that I held a rather (ahem) low opinion of the United Nations. I mentioned that my opinion of that world body has been low ever since they allowed Arafat to deliver a speech there while wearing a pistol on his hip. I also don't take kindly to the Secretary General being a former Nazi Army Officer. It goes downhill from there.

Well, that got me thinking.

I hold lots of seemingly-contradictory opinions. In a sense, I play both sides of the street, while trying to stay out of the middle. That's where all the dead armadillos are. IJS.

Some things about me that probably annoy my liberal friends:

• I believe that the 2nd Amendment says what it says. Period. (P.S. There's a reason it is placed near the top.)

  I suppose I hold this belief because I know how bad other people have had it (some of whom were related to me) in other lands in other times. Trouble usually started with a confiscation of firearms. It went downhill from there.

• Regarding Israel, I am somewhat to the right of Menachim Begin, or I used to be, before Ariel Sharon convinced me to move over with him. No country on earth has to argue so continuously over so long a time simply to convince the world that they have a right to exist. Not even the Palestinians, who really already have a home, in Jordan. They just don't want to go back there. Can't say as I blame them, but that isn't Israel's problem. I told you it would annoy my liberal friends.

• I believe in capital punishment. But the bar should be set extremely high (much higher than it is now). And it should be extremely rare.

Some things that annoy my conservative friends:

• I believe that Republicans want to take from the poor and give to the rich with the middle class paying the bill. The Democrats are somewhat better, taking from the rich (because they can afford it) and giving to the poor and the middle class. I'm glossing over some important details, but not much.

• Paraphrasing Toby Ziegler, I believe that that government (no matter what its failures in the past, and in times to come) government can be a place where people come together. And where no one gets left behind. No one. I believe that government is an instrument of good.

• And while we're quoting characters from The West Wing, I believe what Sam Seaborn believes: "Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic revolutionary changes. Schools should be palaces. Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens, just like national defense."

• I believe in universal (no one gets left behind) health care and...

• Ditto, universal old-age insurance.

• I also believe that the government should NOT be run like a business. For example, what lunatic would create a business where the Chief Executive did not have complete authority and responsibility over spending decisions? No way.

  Instead, I subscribe to the model of modern government where government has a crucial role in keeping an eye on business and making sure that the interests of non-business owners are protected. (P.S. Owning stock does not make you a business owner.)

  Generally speaking I think it is a bad, bad, very bad idea for the interests of government and business to coincide. Why? Because in the world of business, one share equals one vote. In the world of governance, one person equals one vote. What this means is that the natural power of money cannot be allowed to outweigh the natural power of the people.

• Who keeps an eye on government? A free and independent press. As you might imagine, this is why I don't like it when fewer and fewer corporations own more and more of the traditional media. (Thank God for the Internet.)

I've probably got more, but I have to get going. I now return you to your regularly scheduled program, already in progress.

Attorney General Gonzalez Assistant AG William Moschella has sent a letter to members of the House and Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. In the letter, Gonzalez Moschella re-states his belief that the President had the authority to engage in warrant-less snooping, in contradiction of the FISA statute.

However, the Supreme Court has already ruled against another President who tried a similar thing, saying this:

Of course, a state of war may in fact exist without a formal declaration. But no doctrine that the Court could promulgate would seem to me more sinister and alarming than that a President whose conduct of foreign affairs is so largely uncontrolled, and often even is unknown, can vastly enlarge his mastery over the internal affairs of the country by his own commitment of the Nation's armed forces to some foreign venture.

We would not care to wake up to the nightmare
That's becoming real life
But when mislead -- who knows? -- a person's mind
Can turn as cold as ice

Why do you keep on making us hear your song
Telling us how you are changing right from wrong
'Cause if you really want to hear our views
"You haven't done nothing"!

---Stevie Wonder, You Haven't Done Nothing

It was only a matter of time before Bush's warrant-less snooping showed up on the radar screen of the Senate Judiciary Committee's confirmation hearings for Judge Samuel Alito.

As such, Armando has a few questions he'd ask the judge if he, Armando, sat on the committee:

I would ask ScAlito three questions on this issue:

1. "What checks and balances, if any, exist to the President's powers as defined in Article II of the Constitution, particularly in his role as Commander in Chief? Please be precise in your answer Judge Alito."

   
   

2. What powers are granted to the Congress with respect to the military affairs of the federal government by Article I, Section 8, of the United States Constitution? Please be precise in your answer Judge Alito.

   
   

3. Do you believe that the Federalist Papers shed any light on these issues? If so, which writings and what light do they shed? Please address in particular, Federalist 23, 24, 25, 26 and Federalist 69.

These are important questions because the SCOTUS will probably, at some time in the future, sit in judgement of whether or not Bush broke the law.

Bush's warrant-less snooping is an issue that apparently will not go away.

Nor will the muddle of opinions being pitched to justify Bush's admitted criminality.

Here's the latest myth-busting from Think Progress:

A column in this morning’s Chicago Tribune by John Schmidt argues that Bush’s secret domestic surveillance program was legal. (Byron York posted a portion of the piece on the National Review website under the title “READ THIS IMPORTANT ARTICLE“) It features this selectively edited excerpt from a 2002 decision by the FISA appeals court:

“All the … courts to have decided the issue held that the president did have inherent authority to conduct warrantless searches to obtain foreign intelligence…We take for granted that the president does have that authority.”

Actually, the quote doesn’t begin with the word “all”; it begins “The Truong court, as did all the other courts…” The Truong case was decided in 1978 — the same year FISA was passed — and did not deal with the FISA law. As the court noted right before the excerpt, “Truong dealt with a pre-FISA surveillance… it had no occasion to consider the application of the statute…” The Truong case dealt with the President’s power in the absence of a congressional statute.

This is critically important because FISA specifically prohibits the warrantless domestic searches that the President authorized. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in his recent confirmation hearings, referrencing the landmark Supreme Court case Youngstown Sheet, “where the president is acting contrary to congressional authority…the president’s authority is at its lowest ebb.”

The article also conveniently omits the two sentences after the excerpt:

It was incumbent upon the [Truong] court, therefore, to determine the boundaries of that constitutional authority in the case before it. We take for granted that the President does have that authority and, assuming that is so, FISA could not encroach on the President’s constitutional power. The question before us is the reverse…

All the court is saying here is that whether FISA imposes limits on the President’s authority is not an issue in this case. It was an issue in the Troung case but, as the court explains, “[T]he question before us is the reverse.”

Sorry to include so much legalese; sorry to quote so extensively from another source.

I just feel very strongly that all the crap being flung by Bush apologists be exposed for what it really is.

I just read Byron York's piece about Jamie Gorelick.

Sigh...So much crap, so little time.

Here's what Think Progress has to say about it:

In the National Review, Byron York has an article called “Clinton Claimed Authority to Order No-Warrant Searches.” In it, he cites then-Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick’s July 14, 1994 testimony where she argues “the President has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes.” (Tuesday afternoon, Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) quoted her testimony on the Senate floor.)

Here is what York obscures: at the time of Gorelick’s testimony, physical searches weren’t covered under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). It’s not surprising that, in 1994, Gorelick argued that physical searches weren’t covered by FISA. They weren’t. With Clinton’s backing, the law was amended in 1995 to include physical searches.

York claims that, after the law was amended, “the Clinton administration did not back down from its contention that the president had the authority to act when necessary.” That’s false. Neither Gorelick or the Clinton administration ever argued that president’s inherent “authority” allowed him to ignore FISA. (We’ve posted the full text of Gorelick’s testimony here).

The Clinton administration viewed FISA, a criminal statute, as the law. The Bush administration viewed it as a recommendations they could ignore. That’s the difference.

There is so much crap being flung by Bush apologists that it's hard to keep up with it.

But somebody has to do it.

How's about it readers: What were you favorite books of 2005?

Off the top of my head, here's some books that are on my list (in no particular order):

Chronicles, Volume 1 (Bob Dylan)
Surprise! Dylan is a great writer. Don't expect a chronology, per se. Dylan is going wherever he wants to go: New York in the early 60's (where he shakes hands with Jack Dempsey), a recording studio in the 70's and so forth. More to come? Who knows.

The Plot Against America (Philip Roth)
A fictional memoir of the Roth family of New Jersey, during the rise and fall of President Charles Lindbergh. Those of you who thought "it can't happen here," would be advised to read this novel.

His Excellency: George Washington (Joseph Ellis)
We remember Washington today for his wooden teeth and that cherry tree. Yet every one of his contemporaries -- Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, Hamilton, et. al. -- thought him to be the greatest man of that remarkably great era. Read the book and find out why.

The Devil in the White City (Erik Larsen)
Tells the parallel (true) stories of the Chicago World's Fair of 1893 and the serial killer who preyed on the people who came to see it. An excellent example of that genre called "popular history," Larsen paints a picture of late-19th century America simultaneously finding the best and worst of our culture and history.

How about you?

Ask yourself why there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 2001.

OK?

Now ask yourself why there were no terrorist attacks on American soil in the four years before 9/11.

Done? Good. Now...did you learn any valuable lessons from this? I didn't think so.

P.S. This highlights a scary probability: that when the next terrorist attack comes, the same people who bragged about their spotless record of preventing terrorism will cry that America was stabbed in the back by their critics.

(HT to Kevin Drum)

If the President can unilaterally take us to war (which is what that foolish Congress did when they "authorized" him to do whatever it took);

...if the President can do THAT unilaterally (and he did) and if he then turns around and begins picking off our constitutionally guaranteed rights and liberties, one by one, in the name of fighting that war (which he is doing right now in plain sight);

...if he can do all that (which he has) how long will it be before we are living in a dictatorship or a monarchy?

Bush apologists trust him much, much, more than I do. They believe that he would never do that, ever.

Me? I'm not so sure. But so what? If I'm wrong, nothing happens.

But Bush apologists should ask themselves: what if they're wrong? By then, it'll be too late to stop Bush and Cheney from wrecking our country.

My background and life-experience tells me that the only thing keeping us from living under the Bush-Cheney junta is the US Constitution. That's why I will always, always, always defend the US Constitution before I will defend George Bush or any other President.

Richard Posner is is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and a senior lecturer in law at the University of Chicago. Today, he wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that said, in part, that advanced data-mining techniques are a valuable part of our national security infrastructure and also that they are not a threat to civil liberties. He also contends that the existing FISA safeguards are too restricitive and should be eased (although he doesn't address the issue of independent review, i.e., warrants).

It's an informed (and informative) viewpoint which raises this question: if FISA is, in fact, "too restrictive" doesn't that mean that Bush really did break the law by going around it? Marty Lederman puts it this way:

. . . Posner may be right that current law is too restrictive. Congress should have that debate. But isn't it troubling that an esteemed federal judge seems so indifferent to the fact that, in the meantime -- before the Nation and the Congress have had the opportunity to debate Posner's proposal -- the Nation's Chief Executive is systematically authorizing criminal felonies?

In summary, the FISA statute needs amending. It is certainly NOT up to George Bush to unilaterally break the law, no matter how good a reason he has.

No man is above the law--not terrorists, not leakers, not the President.

(HT to Armando)

Lots of fireworks in the aftermath of the Patriot Act filibuster and the revelation of Bush's warrant-less snooping:

“None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), a former judge and close ally of the president who sits on the Judiciary Committee.

“Give me liberty or give me death,” said Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), who has led a bipartisan filibuster against a reauthorization of the Patriot Act.

A federal judge has ruled against proponents of Intelligent Design in Dover, PA:

[U.S. District Judge John E.] Jones blasted the [ID] disclaimer, saying it "singles out the theory of evolution for special treatment, misrepresents its status in the scientific community, causes students to doubt its validity without scientific justification, presents students with a religious alternative masquerading as a scientific theory, directs them to consult a creationist text as though it were a science resource and instructs students to forgo scientific inquiry in the public school classroom and instead to seek out religious instruction elsewhere."

It's a total slam-dunk.

Dover Area School Board members violated the Constitution when they ordered that its biology curriculum must include the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, [the judge] said.

“We find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom,” he wrote in his 139-page opinion.

All-righty then.

What would the Flying Spaghetti Monster do?

But wait...there's more!

The judge made a point of criticizing the [pro-ID] school board members and the "breathtaking inanity" of their decision. “It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy," he wrote.

Ohhhhhhhhhh SNAP!

From the White House website comes painful proof that the guy will look right into your eyes and lie with impunity:

Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way.

When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

Jeez. There's even video of him lying to America. You really have to watch it to get the full sense of his creepy, sleazy, shameful performance. Remember: this is a guy who knew that warrant-less snooping was happening on a regular basis.

Here's another video of his press conference on Monday. Who knows how many lies he told that day? All I can say is, he looks EXTREMELY uncomfortable standing in front of the cameras and answering even the simplest questions.

Last night, Miss Julie came home from a meeting at our synagogue. Because it was a working meeting, pizzas were delivered so the participants could work through dinner. When she came home, she had brought one of the uneaten pizzas home.

Later, when she went to put it away, I heard her burst into laughter from the kitchen.

"Check this out," she said, pointing to the side of the box. Here's what the computerized tracking label on the pizza box said:

Large Cheese
Jefferson Hwy Synagogue
Your pizza experience managed by Christ

Hee.

Bush apologists have a new meme -- warrant-less spying is no big deal. Everyone does it. How? With Project ECHELON.

Dean Esmay:

ECHELON monitors all international telephone traffic in or out of the US, and a good deal else besides, and has for decades. If you've ever made an international phone call ECHELON probably caught it and at least temporarily stored it. You don't have to like it, but it's always been true.

The way they get around domestic laws has long been understood: there are numerous countries that participate in ECHELON. If a government needs something that's in technical violation of its domestic laws, it asks one of the other participating countries to get them the information, in a quid pro quo arrangement. If the Canadian government needs something their laws technically make thorny, they ask the US government to do it for them, or the UK government, or one of the other participants.

So in this case, the question usually becomes: what are they asking the other countries for, and what are they using it for? Are they using it to prosecute or blackmail U.S. citizens or legal residents? Nope. They're using it to identify enemy combatants on foreign soil, in order to locate them and kill them, or at least foil their plots.

Go USA!

Yes. Well.

If Project ECHELON has been in place for decades, then what the hell is "Dick" Cheney complaining about?:

US Vice President Richard Cheney suggested Sunday that the September 11 attacks could have been averted, if the government could have ordered surveillance of phone calls and emails without warrants.

In his first comment on a new rights controversy that has hit the US administration, Cheney said: “It’s the kind of capability if we’d had before 9/11 might have led us to be able to prevent 9/11.”

According the those "in the know," we already had that capability with Project ECHELON. Yet Project ECHELON missed Zacharias Moussouai, Project ECHELON missed Mohammed Atta, Project ECHELON missed the entire 9/11 plot.

Project ECHELON is a bust. Project ECHELON doesn't work. Project ECHELON missed it all.

And it wasn't because a FISA judge wouldn't grant a warrant.

No. Just no. This isn't about "everyone does it."

The warrent-less spying is just another power-grab by a Man Who Would Be King. In short: Bush wants to do what he does without any independent review at all.

No man is above the law: not terrorists, not leakers, not the President.

Do you have the distinct impression that the Bush administration has slid entirely off the rails?

Do you sense that they've lost control of everything? I do.

In his Sunday speech, Bush actually used the phrase "war is lost." Yes, I know he said "to those who believe the war is lost, do not despair, we are winning." But, really, to utter the words is letting the genie out of the bottle. It's like Nixon saying "I am not a crook," or Clinton saying "I did not have sex with that woman." Words are words and they have the power to ignite the imagination of millions of people.

Speaking of Nixon, I remember the "Saturday Night Massacre," the weekend in October 1973 when the Attorney General Elliot Richardson resigned rather than fire the Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox. Nixon demanded that his deputy, William Ruckleshaus, fire Cox. Ruckleshaus refused and was fired himself. Robert Bork, the next one on the call-down list, stepped forward and fired Cox.

That following Monday morning, a man appeared on a DC street corner bearing a simple sign: "Honk if you want him impeached." The din was deafening. Within months, Nixon had resigned.

Am I suggesting impeachment of Bush? No -- it couldn't happen anyway: the House is run by the Republicans. Besides you'd get President Cheney. Impeach Cheney? You'd get President Hastert.

But what if, by bringing up impeachment, you expand everybody's mind, you ignite their imagination to the possibility that this President is the Worst President Ever. Put a debate about impeachment into the public square.

Like the guy said in Risky Business, "Sometimes you have to say, WTF."

And so I was intrigued by this idea from Kagro X:

This idea isn't new, by any means. It's just being put to a new use -- taking impeachment out of the realm of broadcast wonkery, and making it real.

This isn't about achieving the result of impeachment directly. I think we all know where we stand on that score. This is about building resonance, and making impeachment "real," because it's being brought to the attention of real people.

What I'm proposing is this: Go into your word processors right now, and type out the word "IMPEACH." Go ahead, use caps. Center it. Bold it. Make it 72 point. Turn the page to landscape if you like, and make it bigger.

You've got a sign. Print it out. Xerox it. Put it up on a lamp post. On a supermarket bulletin board. Inside a newspaper vending machine. Anywhere.

You've joined the movement.

How does it feel? Want more? Would you be willing to spend a little money on it?

Pick up a pack of Avery labels down at the office supply store. Print out a page worth of stickers that say the same thing. IMPEACH.

Not impeach Bush. Not impeach Cheney. Not Chimpeach. Just IMPEACH.

Everyone will know what you're talking about. Everyone will know who you're talking about, even if you're talking about Cheney and not Bush. They'll still get it. Stick those stickers anywhere you like, and that you won't get in trouble for. Go ahead. Anywhere.

Nailbender goes the Burma-Shave route, suggesting signs spaced 1/10 miles apart on secondary roads only:

He took your call

He never asked

You never knew

'Till years had passed

He's got your name

He's beyond your reach

Unless you agree

To this: IMPEACH!!!

Go ahead -- let your imagination wander. Like those Avery labels? Stick one at eye-level over every urinal in every bathroom (gals -- you can do the same thing by sticking one near the flush handle of the ladies room toilets).

Guerilla marketing...it's a wonderful thing.

Jonathan Alter kicks ass:

President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

[...]

Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story...because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.

[...]

the 1978 law set up a special court to approve eavesdropping in hours, even minutes, if necessary. In fact, the law allows the government to eavesdrop on its own, then retroactively justify it to the court, essentially obtaining a warrant after the fact. Since 1979, the FISA court has approved tens of thousands of eavesdropping requests and rejected only four. There was no indication the existing system was slow—as the president seemed to claim in his press conference—or in any way required extra-constitutional action.

No man is above the law. Not terrorists, not leakers, and certainly not the President of the United States of America.

Kevin Drum ties down some loose ends:

...[T]he president's program is almost certainly illegal unless you accept his unprecedented notion that we are currently in a state of war so grave that he has virtually unlimited power to override federal law whenever he considers it necessary. Even more importantly, by keeping his program secret, he has set himself up as the sole arbiter of whether his actions are legal or not. Neither Congress nor the courts are allowed any oversight, a position that is both breathtaking and dangerous.

Any questions?

Senator Russ Feingold issued a response to President Bush's admissions during his radio address Saturday that he authorized domestic intelligence wiretaps without a warrant or court order. It is available as a radio actuality at the following number telephone number: 800-511-0763, Code 4945.

Here's an excerpt from Feingold's address:

The President believes that he has the power to override the laws that Congress has passed. This is not how our democratic system of government works. The President does not get to pick and choose which laws he wants to follow. He is a president, not a king.

There's more below the fold, including facts about The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) which is the statutory framework for eavesdropping on individuals within the United States, including U.S. citizens, who are not suspected of having committed a crime but who are likely to be spies or members of terrorist organizations.

Bush:

"There is a difference between honest critics, who recognize what is wrong, and defeatists, who refuse to see that anything is right."

Have you ever gone house hunting? Did you ever see a house you liked but, after further investigation, find that there were structural defects that made the purchase unwise? You know -- foundation wall was cracked, etc. Or maybe you discover that the house in the flight path of a major airport.

No matter how nice the house itself might look, you decide that what you'll give up is far more than what you'll get in return.

You ever have that experience?

My dad used to call that, "Doing a nickel's worth of good for a dime."

Similarly, there are many right-thinking people (and I count myself amongst them) that believe that what we may have given up in granting Bush the authority to invade Iraq will far exceed what we got back in return.

Here's the thing: Bush says that we are at war and so he will do anything to protect us. But (for those of us who question the entire rationale for the war) we do not rest easier after listening to his speech. Like Mark Bowden said:

When a president lies or exaggerates in making an argument for war, when he spins the facts to sell his case, he betrays his public trust, and he diminishes the credibility of his office and our country. We are at war. What we lost in this may yet end up being far more important than what we gained.

Bush is saying "Trust me."

But I think it is too late for him to rely on that trust.

The best minds in the legal community will be arguing this for quite some time.

Those who feel he was within his bounds will argue that Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution gives Bush the authority to do what he did:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States...

Those who feel otherwise will probably quote an excerpt from United States v. United States District Court a 1972 SCOTUS decision.

...Fourth Amendment freedoms cannot properly be guaranteed if domestic security surveillances may be conducted solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch. The Fourth Amendment does not contemplate the executive officers of Government as neutral and disinterested magistrates. Their duty and responsibility are to enforce the laws, to investigate, and to prosecute.

The decision also said this:

...[T]hose charged with this investigative and prosecutorial duty should not be the sole judges of when to utilize constitutionally sensitive means in pursuing their tasks. The historical judgment which the Fourth Amendment accepts, is that unreviewed executive discretion may yield too readily to pressures to obtain incriminating evidence and overlook potential invasions of privacy and protected speech.

More background below the fold...

Dana Rohrabacher, Republican Congressman from California, addressing whether or not Bush's spying on Americans was lawful:

ROHRABACHER: Well, I'll tell you something, if a nuclear weapon goes off in Washington, DC, or New York or Los Angeles, it'll burn the Constitution as it does.

Atrios has a round-up of comments from Bob Barr, former Republican Congressman from Georgia (who is outraged by Bush's actions) in addition to more insights from Rohrabacher:

"You got a best friend? Is he smarter than you? Would you trust him with your life? That's your Chief of Staff."

Click thumbnails for larger images.

Richard Schiff (Toby Z) said it best:

There are very few personal treasures that you put in your knapsack to carry with you for the rest of your life, and he’s one of those.

Keith Olberman:

And where politics and art overlap tonight, an untimely passing to report. Many people probably truly believe that Leo McGarry was the White House Chief of Staff or, at least, many of them wanted him to be. For an actor there could be no greater praise; now, it is a greater legacy. Actor John Spencer of "The West Wing" has died today of a heart attack in LA; his publicist releasing no further details.

In the most depressing instance yet of "The West Wing" not just imitating life but forecasting it. The character of Leo McGarry had suffered a heart attack, one from which he recovered, in season 6 of the series. Others will, no doubt, remember John Spencer's work as 'Tommy Mullaney' on the hit 1980's series "LA Law". John Spencer’s work on "The West Wing" earning him an Emmy in 2002. He was nominated 5 times.

"The West Wing" creator Aaron Sorkin and his colleague, Tommy Schlamme, saying in a statement tonight: "John was an uncommonly good man, an exceptional role model and a brilliant actor. We feel privileged to have known him and worked with him. He will be missed and remembered every day by his many, many friends and his fans, for whom he always had time." John Spencer was 58 years old.

From an interview with John Spencer:

TERENCE SMITH: To what degree have you consulted with the [White House Chief of Staff] John Podestas of this world, or the people who have done the job that you are playing?

JOHN SPENCER: After the fact. Aaron [Sorkin] gave me a book, the writing of five different chiefs of staff, and I read it before we started the pilot after I'd been cast. And way after the fact, into our first season, I met John Podesta. And I'm just crazy about him. He's a great fellow.

We didn't talk a lot of shop. We talked sort of human stuff: the size of his office; what his hours were, as opposed to my hours. I thought I had him beat, and then I discovered not. He has to do weekends; I don't do weekends.

And then I met Leon Panetta, who is a great, great guy, too, who gave me the biggest compliment. He said, "Any government would be lucky with 'Leo' as chief of staff."

From the Times:

Months after the Sept. 11 attacks, President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials.

Unfortunately this story will probably fade quickly during the rush of holiday Christmas cheer. Most people will probably shrug, saying, "What's the big deal? Don't you want to stop the terrorists? Besides, they're not listening to my phone conversations."

How do you know that for sure?

P.S. Republicans will slam concerned Democrats as -- wait for it -- "carping critics" and/or "soft on terror." As for conservatives, I have no idea how they'll rationalize this away. Didn't they use to believe in being left alone?

P.P.S. Somewhere, "Dick" Cheney is smiling. Hell, somewhere Richard Nixon is smiling.

From Rep. John Dingell, Democrat from Michigan. This one's for you, Rose.

'Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House,
no bills were passed `bout which Fox News could grouse.
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
so vacations in St. Barts soon should be near.

Katrina kids were all nestled snug in motel beds,
while visions of school and home danced in their heads.
In Iraq, our soldiers need supplies and a plan,
and nuclear weapons are being built in Iran.

Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell.
Americans feared we were in a fast track to ..... well.
Wait, we need a distraction, something divisive and wily,
a fabrication straight from the mouth of O'Reilly.

We will pretend Christmas is under attack,
hold a vote to save it, then pat ourselves on the back.
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger,
Wake up Congress, they're in no danger.

This time of year, we see Christmas everywhere we go,
From churches to homes to schools and, yes, even Costco.
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy
when this is the season to unite us with joy.

At Christmastime, we're taught to unite.
We don't need a made-up reason to fight.
So on O'Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter and those right-wing blogs.
You should sit back and relax, have a few egg nogs.

'Tis the holiday season; enjoy it a pinch.
With all our real problems, do we really need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues, I say with delight,
a Merry Christmas to all, and to Bill O'Reilly, happy holidays.
Ho, ho, ho. Merry Christmas.

(HT to CuteOverload.com)

OK Rep. Tom Cole, a former RNC executive director, is telling colleagues that Republicans can prevent losses in the 2006 midterm elections if they successfully define Democrats as carping critics who favor surrender in Iraq, higher taxes and more government spending.

I've stayed away from the Jack Abramoff/Republican money scandals -- too inside baseball for me.

But I did note that Bush told Brit Hume that Abramoff was "giving money to both political parties." I've been told this too by other Republicans.

Hotline on Call blows the whistle on Bush:

The lobbyist himself was a Bush Pioneer and directly wrote more than 200K in checks from '92 to '05 to Republicans. Abramoff never gave a penny to Democrats or Democratic committees.

True -- he encouraged or "directed," as the Washington Post says, his clients to give generously to politicians of parties, which they did. And several associates who worked closely with Abramoff were, indeed, "equal money dispenser[s]" as Bush said.

But not Abramoff himself.

A detail, yes, but it's that kind of stuff that allows Bush and the other Republicans to skate by the truth.

I'm not a lawyer, but gosh -- it's pretty unusual for a President to comment like this on a pending legal proceeding, isn't it?

I mean, that's what we keep hearing about Scooter Libby, right?

P.S. If I were Ronnie Earle, I'd be pissed.

UPDATE:

Apparently the White House Press corps thought it was fishy, too:

[Bush's comments] sparked a storm of questioning at the daily briefing on Thursday by White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, with NBCs David Gregory leading the way, accusing the administration of being “hypocritical” and “inconsistent” on this matter, “ad nauseum.”

McClellan fired back, denying the charge and suggesting that the newsman was getting “all dramatic about it.”

I know you are but what am I?

MORE:

Digby points out that Nixon was the last President to do this, pronouncing Charley Manson "guilty" before the trial had concluded.

The Iraqis go to the polls today to vote in what the LA Times calls, "a high-stakes election that could determine the course of the nation, and the success or failure of the U.S. effort to bring Western-style democracy to the Arab Middle East."

I'm reminded of that passage in Saving Private Ryan, where Tom Hanks' character says this, after half his platoon has been wiped out searching for the title character:

He better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer-lasting lightbulb.

I pray to God that this war will have been worth it -- that the Iraqis make the most of their opportunity.

I'm also reminded of what Lincoln said at Gettysburg:

...[F]rom these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they here gave the last full measure of devotion--that we 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.

The Iraqis vote today and I hope they do the right thing. But if what they grant is permission for the mullahs to sit in judgement of the Iraqi Constitution, if the mullahs put Allah above the Iraqi Constitution, then what they'll have created is an Islamic Republic. And that is not the "government of the people" that we honor; that is not what we should have spent our blood and treasure on to create for them.

Let Sandra Day O'Connor have the last word:

At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish...

In short, I fear a state that assumes that religious authority is the highest authority, rather than the authority of the people.

Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?

If that is what happens in Iraq, our efforts will have been in vain and the damage from this war will take a generation to undo.

[Note: If you don't care about polling, close this window and move on...]

Very few pollsters are more accurate than Survey USA. There are some good reasons for why this is, none of which I will go into here. Read the docs if you're interested. That said, I found their latest round of polling very enlightening.

You know how everyone "knows" that although Bush's approval ratings suck, Congress' approval ratings suck worse? And, sucking worst of all are Congressional Democrats? Turns out the conventional wisdom is very wrong. According to SUSA's latest poll of approval/disapproval ratings of all 100 US Senators and even all 50 US Governors, Bush sucks the worst.

President Bush (November, 2005):
Approval: 37%
Disapproval: 60%
Net Approval: -23 points

US Governors (November 2005):
Summary: There are 44 state governors with better net approval ratings than Bush.
Conversely, there are six governors (5 of whom are Republicans) with worse net approval ratings.

US Senators (December 2005):
I'll cut to the chase: Bush's net approval is worse than any of the 100 US Senators.
BTW, of the ten "bottom-ranked" US Senators, eight are Republicans; conversely, of the ten "top-ranked" US Senators, seven are Democrats.

To be fair, Bush's approval/disapproval rating got better in December and I don't have the SUSA numbers on that. That said, he probably still ranks far below the least popular US Senator, Democrat Frank Lautenberg of NJ who has a net rating of -1 pts. And I don't (yet) have figures on the 435 members of the House. But I'd be surprised if Bush wasn't near the bottom of that pile as well.

Bottom line? People might hate Congress but they loooooove their Congressman.

Bush? Not so much.

Because you'll find stuff like this:

• How to make a PC out of gingerbread
  This Swedish website has step-by-step photo-illustrated instructions for building a detailed, accurate model of a PC mobo (motherboard) out of gingerbread, gumdrops, and the like. It's amazingly detailed -- separate gingerbread RAM, heat-sink, etc, all lovingly assembled on a gingerbreadboard.

• How to send mail to God/Santa
  The USPS has posted official instructions for addressing postal mail to God and/or Santa Claus (are they the same entity?)

• Chewing gum removal machine costs $8000
  I'll bet someone could make an effective gum remover and sell it for a profit at $500. (Even cheaper, theme park and shopping mall owners could simply purchase a gun for less than $100 and shoot the morons who spit their gum on the ground.)

• Dangerously strong magnets
  Beware - you must think ahead when moving these magnets.
  If carrying one into another room, carefully plan the route you will be taking. Computers & monitors will be affected in an entire room. Loose metallic objects and other magnets may become airborne and fly considerable distances - and at great speed - to attach themselves to this magnet. If you get caught in between the two, you can get injured...Take Note: Two of the 3" x 1" disc magnets can very easily break your arm if they get out of control.

• Table coverts to truncheon and shield
  The Safe Bedside table is a designer's concept for a table that converts to a self-defense truncheon and shield to defend you against intruders who break into your home while you sleep.

• For sale: fawn preserved in a jar
  eBay auction for a preserved fawn in a one gallon jar. One day left before the auction expires. The high bid is $15. What a delightful xmas gift this would make.

You need to check in at Boing Boing at least once a day.

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wants to know: what was the worst thing you ever did to screw over your opponent just in time for the holidays?

Consider the perfectly timed restraining order, or the spontaneous motion for an order to show cause—or in fact anything that could bury the other side in research and paperwork the day before Christmas. Think about the possibilities for 11th-hour changes in the visitation schedule for the children—requiring canceled plane tickets and Christmas Eve court appearances. Or the last-minute effort to have a local crèche or tree deemed unconstitutional.

Mark -- Have you got anything to share...?

Almost forgot -- she's offering prizes!

What can I say that hasn't already been said over the last few days?

D.L. Hughley said it best (paraphrasing):

Everyone else tried to hide their pain, but Richard put his pain right out there and laughed at it and we laughed with him.

God, how we laughed.

Hey Richard -- say hi to Mudbone for me.

I read a fair number of books ever month. Miss Julie and I often share fiction books we've checked out from the library. My Amazon wishlist has a ton of books on it, non-fiction and fiction alike. My night-stand is always packed with books that I'm reading, have read, or am gonna read. Currently, I'm reading Gilead (Marilynne Robinson). I recently finished one of the best non-fiction books I've ever read, The Robert Collier Letter Book.

That said, I don't think I've ever written in the margins of any book I owned (or, God forbid) one I got from the library.

But here's what I have done: I dog-eared the corners. J. Wynia explains:

I know some of you just tuned me out as a heretic, but I dogear pages. Worse than that, I dogear for 2 different purposes. I use the top right corner of the right page as my bookmark. I also use the bottom corner of a page that contains something interesting as a marker as well. That lower dog-ear is often accompanied by notes written in the margin. [Note: I never do this!!! Ok, I might use a highlighter...] By folding over the bottom corner of interesting pages, I can quickly look at a book of mine and see how useful I find it. It also lets me flip through a book I haven’t used in a while and easily find the bits I’m likely to want to find again.

Anyone else do this? If and when you did, did your wife yell at you?

Dr. K speaks, the world, er, listens:

Whatever one’s view of the decision to undertake the Iraq war, the method by which it was entered, or the strategy by which it was conducted – and I supported the original decision – one must be clear about the consequences of failure. If, when we go, we leave nothing behind but a failed state and chaos, the consequences will be disastrous for the region and for America’s position in the world.

After reading this, I am convinced more than ever that we should declare victory and come home. But victory should be defined on our own terms. Here's what Iraq would have to look like one year from now in order for us to declare victory:

1. There is a stable, democratic government in Iraq -- no mullahs in charge of the Supreme Court, no Islamic Republic, no quasi-post-Yugoslavia partitioning of Iraq.

2. No more insurgent attacks against the US or the Iraqi government.

3. The majority of our troops have come home, and no permanent American base in Iraq is established.

4. Saddam has been tried, convicted and executed.

I'd call that victory and I'd give Bush credit for getting it done.

In between now and then we need to see steady progress toward those goals. We need Bush to tell us how those goals are going to be achieved, and we need him to report regularly to the American people on progress toward those goals.

If he can't or won't do that, the Democrats should run in 2006 as the party that can make this happen, with or without Bush's willing leadership.

1. Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he has never cried.
   
2. Chuck Norris does not sleep. He waits.
   
3. Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing.
   
4. The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.
   
5. Chuck Norris is currently suing NBC, claiming Law and Order are trademarked names for his left and right legs.
   
6. Chuck Norris sold his soul to the devil for his rugged good looks and unparalleled martial arts ability. Shortly after the transaction was finalized, Chuck roundhouse kicked the devil in the face and took his soul back. The devil, who appreciates irony, couldn't stay mad and admitted he should have seen it coming. They now play poker every second Wednesday of the month.
   
7. Chuck Norris built a time machine and went back in time to stop the JFK assassination. As Oswald shot, Chuck met all three bullets with his beard, deflecting them. JFK's head exploded out of sheer amazement.
   
8. To prove it isn't that big of a deal to beat cancer. Chuck Norris smoked 15 cartons of cigarettes a day for 2 years and aquired 7 different kinds of cancer only to rid them from his body by flexing for 30 minutes. Beat that, Lance Armstrong.
   
9. If you can see Chuck Norris, he can see you. If you can't see Chuck Norris you may be only seconds away from death.
   
10. A blind man once stepped on Chuck Norris' shoe. Chuck replied, "Don't you know who I am? I'm Chuck Norris!" The mere mention of his name cured this man blindness. Sadly the first, last, and only thing this man ever saw, was a fatal roundhouse kick delivered by Chuck Norris.

Yeah, but how would he do in a fight with The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

P.S. If you thought those were funny, you need to see the other 20 of the Top 30 Chuck Norris Facts. On the other hand, if you cannot fathom why I put this up here, just move on and don't tell anyone we talked.

(HT to Kung Fu Monkey)

From the Vermont Guardian:

TUNIS, Tunisia – Justin Mupinda hurried up to the crowded stall at the Tunis World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). “I want to see this device with my own eyes,” he said. He was among the thousands at WSIS who were curious about what was fast emerging as the biggest technology story of the event — a laptop that costs only $100.

The laptop — hailed by its developers as a technological breakthrough — was proudly displayed at the UN Development Program stand, with the slogan “One laptop per child.”

“I like it,” said Mupinda, a Zimbabwean IT expert and country coordinator for WorldLink, an organization campaigning to bring a million personal computers to schools in Africa. “It’s a good start toward getting more youths using ICTs” (individual computer terminals).

I recently received this email from Larry Orlansky. I'm including it in its entirety.

Dear Friends:

I hope this finds you and your family well and anticipating a happy holiday season. I want to ask you a favor.

Many of us who live in New Orleans are concerned about "Katrina Fatigue", that is, that the country is tired of hearing about the devastation and that people have "moved on to other things," consistent with our nation's famously short attention span as to issues not involving Court TV-type intrigue.

The result we fear and are beginning to see is an ever-decreasing level of interest in funding the rebuilding of New Orleans, and even a sense of annoyance with the urgent requests made on our behalf.

Many of us therefore feel a need to reach out to friends and family across the country in order to bring attention to the situation and to explain why the federal government needs to play a major role in this process. The hope is to increase understanding and to build a strong consensus among Americans that will be heard and heeded by the decision makers.

For some reason that we are unable to fathom down here, the destruction of the homes and businesses of tens of thousands of Americans, a substantial percentage of whom, by the way, are tax-paying middle and upper middle class families, has not captured the attention of, or maintained the continuing interest of, our nation...

In the course of a Q & A yesterday, Bush confirmed that 30 thousand Iraqis had been killed in the war so far.

Does this have an impact on the American electorate? Or do people just go, "Enh."

What do you think?

I recently read where White House strategists believe they have ended the slide in Bush's approval ratings, which lately have been topping 40% again.

"It's time for the Bush comeback story!...The perfect storm has receded. We have better news in Iraq, oil prices are down, and Katrina has kind of fallen off the radar screen in terms of public concern."

Let me be blunt: whoever said this should be horse-whipped. Before "Bush comes back," he better keep the promise he made that evening when he stood in Jackson Square and vowed to rebuild New Orleans.

And in case you think that "White House strategist" was speaking out of school, here's what Mike Allen of the Post had to say on Meet The Press on Sunday:

I’m going to tell you something to amaze you; it amazed me yesterday. The last time the president was in the hurricane region was October 11, two months ago. The president stood in New Orleans and said it was going to be one of the largest reconstruction efforts in the history of the world. You go to the White house home page, there’s Barney-cam, there’s Social Security, there’s Renewing Iraq. Where’s renewing New Orleans? A presidential advisor told me that issue has fallen so far off the radar screen, you can’t find it.

WTF? Barney-cam?

But wait, there's more from the New York Times:

We are about to lose New Orleans. Whether it is a conscious plan to let the city rot until no one is willing to move back or honest paralysis over difficult questions, the moment is upon us when a major American city will die, leaving nothing but a few shells for tourists to visit like a museum.

Let's get real:

• The cost of repairing the levees would be $32 billion

• The latest round of tax cuts will cost $95 billion

You mean to look me in the eye and tell me that a lousy one-third of these tax cuts couldn't instead be used to rebuild New Orleans?

Not long ago, Bush marched into Jackson Square and said this:

And tonight I also offer this pledge of the American people: Throughout the area hit by the hurricane, we will do what it takes, we will stay as long as it takes, to help citizens rebuild their communities and their lives. And all who question the future of the Crescent City need to know there is no way to imagine America without New Orleans, and this great city will rise again.

And now we're hearing that New Orleans has dropped off the radar and we have...Barney-cam?

A wise man said this once:

I believe that government (no matter what its failures in the past, and in times to come), government can be a place where people come together. And where no one gets left behind. No one gets left behind. An instrument of good.

Listen: if you're a regular reader of this blog, you know that I've been working with FEMA at the Baton Rouge Joint Field Office (JFO) for the last 12+ weeks doing what I could to help put the Gulf Coast back together again. I've seen the aftermath of Katrina with my own eyes. I've been to the Lower Ninth Ward, I've been to Chalmette, I've been to New Orleans. And honest to God, I couldn't tell you that the devastation there was any less than it would have been if al-Qaeda had detonated a suitcase nuke in Jackson Square.

So here's my challenge to anyone reading this who has any doubts about what I'm saying: Look me in the eye and tell me that we wouldn't rebuild New Orleans if terrorists had destroyed it.

I dare you.

Cunning Realist:

Unlike some of the moonbatty goldbugs out there, I don't see the sharp rise in gold (left, click graph for larger image) as a sign that financial apocalypse is on the calendar for next week.

Rather, it is an indication that stress is rapidly building under the surface.

In this case, that can take several forms including the diversification away from dollar-denominated assets by foreigners. This is in fact happening right now, as Russia, China, the Saudis and others have been buying gold.

And you've no doubt noticed the increasingly shrill hysteria about Hugo Chavez. Did you think that was just about "democracy"? Venezuela has been using its profits from oil to buy gold as well---unacceptable to statists who abhor consequences.

When stress builds in the financial system, usually the results are not manifest right away. The real fallout from the 1987 stock market crash wasn't visible until the early 1990's. Similarly, the hangover from the 1990's stock market bubble hit after Clinton left office, and continues to this day.

I suspect that the financial zealotry occurring right now in Washington will have a similar denouement, and gold is simply warning of its increasing inevitability and eventual magnitude.

Lots of fretting amongst Democrats and Independents about whether folk like Pelosi, Dean and Kerry are getting outmaneuvered by Republicans who characterize them as the party of "Retreat and Defeat." No doubt about it: Bush's base is receptive to that characterization.

But the majority of Americans are looking at it another way. To the majority of Americans the choice is simple:

End The War, or
Don't End The War.

The rest is details.

Bush would like the issue to split this way:

Win, or
Lose.

But that's simplistic, if not arrogant. Essentially Bush is saying "My Way or The Highway."

Best to steer clear of that debate altogether. Democrats: don't take the bait.

That's why the Democrats must present a different choice:

End the War, or
Don't End the War.

Once you get a consensus that you will end the war, the rest is details, e.g., define what victory looks like, set forth a strategy to attain it, find out what the enemy wants and how to keep them from getting it, etc.

Again: no one wants to lose. You musn't get into an argument about that.

The real debate is this:

End the War, or
Don't End the War.

Force people to choose up sides.

The rest is detail.

Hunter knocks it out of the park.

P.S. Somehow my card from the Bushes got lost in the mail. Did it really say "Happy Holidays" and not "Merry Christmas?"

WTF??

Yep. That's the title of an article by Jim VandeHei in the Post. And who knows? If you read it, see it, and hear it enough, you might start to believe it.

At least that's what I think Karl Rove is hoping.

In the article VandeHei menions about a half dozen Republican Congressmen and Senators who essentially say this: “Bush might suck, but he is a stud when it comes to fund-raising! He is a freaking money magnet! Woo hoo! I looooooooves me that cash! Bring it on, baby!”

Here's the nut 'graph (a little newspaper reporter lingo there):

A top White House aide, who would not speak on the record while discussing internal strategizing, said it is difficult for Bush to campaign for Republicans such as Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-R.I.) who opposed his policies. The White House sent Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. to raise money for Chafee -- but it is unlikely Bush will work for Chafee personally.

Let's parse this.

A top White House aide: Someone that wants to feed VandeHei a line of crap and see it turn up in the Post without his fingerprints all over it.

The White House sent Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr.: "The White House" doesn't send anyone anywhere. The only people powerful enough to tell the White House Chief of Staff where to go are George W. Bush and Karl Rove. And since Bush is probably not the "top White House aide" mentioned earlier, my bet is that it's Karl Rove feeding that crap to VandeHei.

When will these people ever learn?

The recent success of the Republican party lies in offering something for nothing.

During the early Reagan years this amounted to voodoo economics, i.e., tax-cuts as far as the eye can see. But even Reagan was smart enough to realize that "trickled on" economics was creating huge deficits and in order to stop it, he had to choose: either cut spending or raise taxes. He found that the former was hard to do (everyone wanted their safety net) but the latter was relatively easy.

By the time VPOTUS Bush got to the 1988 RNC Convention, he knew that the kool-aid drinking radicals like Grover Norquist and Newt Gingrich were pissed about this. So he sent a message: "Read my lips, no new taxes."

It was a silly pledge, given what we had experienced during the Reagan years. And sure enough, 2 years later he wisely bit the bullet. But too bad for him -- he lost the Republican tax-cutting base and went down to defeat in 1992.

His son, Bush 43 entered office determined to do whatever it took to avoid the "mistakes" of the previous Republican President. Since then, we've swallowed five years of tax cuts (the latest of which was passed by the House yesterday). The result? Huge deficits, stagnant growth in median wages, cuts in the safety net, and a growing gap between the haves and the have-mores (or as Bush famously called them, "my base.")

But, hey -- donors to the RNC love it and that's all that matters.

Yes, I can hear you saying that tax cuts are good -- "It's my money!" But stop and think about it: as a life-changing event, a few hundred dollars isn't going to measure up. But at the upper end of the scale, tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars is significant. It's enough to put some lipstick on what really amounts to an ugly pig.

But after a while, people begin to realize what they're giving up to get that few hundred dollars a year. They realize that the safety net is getting shredded and the 21st century Republicans are anything but fiscally responsible.

What do the Republicans do for an encore? They put an emphasis on "Fears, Queers, and Smears." Tout the war on terror. Mention 9/11 in every speech. Invade Iraq. Run against gay marriage.

And attack the reputation of anyone who even casually mentions that the Emperor has, ahem, no clothes.

Of course, this is all my opinion. I could be wrong.

But I doubt it.

His career really only spanned 10 or maybe 15 years, tops. But in that brief span, John Lennon was everywhere.

Whereas Paul McCartney's melodies are the ones that have endured, it was John's musical ideas that were the zeitgeist of the times. Songs like Imagine, All You Need is Love, and Give Peace a Chance have come to define the Sixties.

No one of his generation (save Paul) was his equal as a vocalist. His voice could peel paint on Twist and Shout but could also break your heart on Julia. His snarling despair on Cold Turkey still raises the hair on the back my neck. He was the first guitarist to purposely record guitar feedback on mainstream vinyl (I Feel Fine) and on many of his best singles his guitar and his voice were figuratively indistinguishable.

He could also be funny as hell. When asked, "How do you find America?" he replied "Turn left at Greenland." No matter that Bugs Bunny said it first -- John winked and let us all know he dug Looney Tunes, too. In fact, the Beatles were another Goon Show, but with guitars and drums. And that was chiefly reflective of John's spirit.

He was an avatar of modern celebrity. He mastered the news cycle as an entertainer and then used his voice to broach the topic of war and politics. No one else (with the exception of Muhammed Ali) could have done it.

When he finally quit the Beatles, he did everything he could to debunk and destroy the myth he had a hand in creating. Tragically, it was the myth that finally had a hand in destroying him.

He died young, twenty-five years ago today. But if you want to remember him, listen to his music -- it will last forever.

Bonus: Go rent Backbeat. It's the story of the pre-fame Beatles in Hamburg, focusing on the friendship between John and Stuart Sutcliffe (the original "Fifth Beatle").

Yesterday, I said that one of our problems in Iraq is that no one has described what "victory" would look like, so how can we declare it and come home? Instead, Bush is like the goofball behind the wheel of the car who says, "I don't know where we're going but we're making really good time."

So upon further reflection, I'll save everyone the bandwidth and describe what Iraq would have to look like one year from now in order for us to declare victory:

1. There is a stable, democratic government in Iraq -- no mullahs in charge of the Supreme Court, no Islamic Republic, no quasi-post-Yugoslavia partitioning of Iraq.

2. No more insurgent attacks against the US or the Iraqi government.

3. The majority of our troops have come home, and no permanent American base in Iraq is established.

4. Saddam has been tried, convicted and executed.

I'd call that victory and I'd give Bush credit for getting it done.

In between now and then we need to see steady progress toward those goals. We need Bush to tell us how those goals are going to be achieved, and we need him to report regularly to the American people on progress toward those goals.

What do you think?

Rep. Murtha Holds a News Conference to Respond to President Bush's Speech:

QUESTION: Mr. Murtha, what do you say to Senator Lieberman whom yesterday said Democrats need to acknowledge that this President is Commander in Chief for three more years, that undermining his credibility...

MURTHA: Undermining his credibility? What has he said that would give him credibility?

According to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today:

• 77% of respondents say the U.S. should continue a global war on terrorism
  
• 40% percent say get out of Iraq immediately
  
• 4% say get out in six months
  
• 10% say get out in one year
  
• 5% say get out in two to three years.
  
• 34% of voters oppose setting a deadline or immediate withdrawal
  
• 54% of voters say going to war in Iraq was the wrong thing to do
  
• 49% say the Bush Administration deliberately misled the American people in making its case for the war

"Americans want to fight terror, but they don't think Iraq is the place to do it. Forty percent say 'get out now,' and another 19 percent favor a phased withdrawal," said Maurice Carroll, Director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. "Not only is the President pushing an unpopular war, Americans think he lied to get us into it.

"Dick" Cheney, Wanker of the Day:

“Some have suggested by liberating Iraq from Saddam Hussein we simply stirred up a hornet's nest. They overlook a fundamental fact: We were not in Iraq in September 2001 and the terrorists hit us anyway.”

Yes. Well.

There were probably dozens of countries that we were "not in" on 9/11. So what?

Question: Of all the people running this war, is there anyone, anywhere, who has less credibility on it than "Dick" Cheney?

Stop me if you've heard this one:

After numerous rounds of "We don't even know if Osama is still alive," Osama himself decided to send George W. Bush a letter in his own handwriting to let the President know he was still in the game. Bush opened the letter and it appeared to contain a single line of coded message:

370HSSV - 0773H

Bush was baffled, so he e-mailed it to Condi Rice. Condi and her aides had no clue either, so they sent it to the FBI.

No one could solve it at the FBI so it went to the CIA, then to the NSA. With no clue as to its meaning they eventually asked Israel's Mossad for help. Within a minute Mossad cabled the White House with this reply:

"Tell the President he's holding the message upside down."

(HT to Bill in Portland Maine)

A quick review: in the short few weeks since the 403-3 defeat of the counterfeit Murtha resolution, this nation has turned a corner: there is now a clear, vocal majority who favors bringing the war in Iraq to an end.

Of course, everyone has a different opinion about how to do that.

It's not like we don't have a tradition for this sort of thing: simply declare victory and bring the troops home.

And Bush, for his part, has always rallied support by saying that he will fight the war until we achieve victory. That sounded nice in the beginning. After all, Americans prefer to win (instead of lose) wars. But the growing difficulty for Bush is two-fold:

1. He has never really explained a strategy for achieving that "victory." Even his speech at Annapolis was painfully short on details.

2. More importantly, he has never really defined what "victory" would even look like. Everyone agrees there will never be a "Battleship Missouri" moment when the enemy steps forward and surrenders his sword and signs the surrender document. This has led to a general consensus that the military isn't going to be able to "win" this war, not all by itself. (BTW, when Howard Dean says that, he gets labeled a moonbat. Go figure.)

There are other problems with the "victory" strategy. For one thing, how can you "defeat" an enemy when you can't even tell us who he is? Back in the day, the enemy was Saddam. We toppled his regime and then captured him, but doggone it, the war goes on. Now, it's supposedly Zarqawi we're fighting. When he's gone, does anyone really believe the war will end?

So let's ask the question: who are these insurgents and why are they fighting? Once, Rumsfeld called them "dead-enders" and waved them away, suggested they were just a bunch of sore losers. That didn't work. Next, they were labeled "terrorists." Maybe that's true, but if so, what is their beef?

Let's look around for a moment: the terrorists that attack Israel are clearly in it to drive the Israelis into the sea. Good luck with that. That said, do these insurgents/terrorists want to drive the Americans out? Do they want the return of Saddam? Do they want to crown Zarqawi king of Iraq?

In short, if "victory" is what we want, then shouldn't we also know what the insurgents want and make damn sure they don't get it? How can we do that if we're clueless?

Has anyone asked that question yet? Why not?

Let's look around again. Sharon's response in Israel has been to unilaterally pull back the IDF from selected positions in the West Bank and Gaza. Everyone knows that Bush and Sharon form a mutual admiration society. Do you think Bush is paying attention to what the old general is doing? I hope so. Gosh -- if a strongman like Sharon can do it, shouldn't the rest of us sit up and take notice?

Predictably, the MSM has it all wrong: after watching Bush swerve all over the road, knocking down mailboxes, driving the other cars off the road and then putting his own car into a ditch, the MSM wants to know: What are the Democrats going to do about it?

My God, how lame can you get?

The fact is, the Democrats cannot (and should not) say anything other than this: until we're in charge of at least one House of Congress, our suggestions mean nothing. And since the campaign for the midterm elections doesn't really get going until Congress adjourns next summer, we have plenty of time to air out the debate.

I see nothing wrong with all the many voices that are speaking up now in the party. Let's have more! Dean, Clinton, Kerry, Clark, Holbrooke, Feingold, Murtha, and on and on. Let's hear them all. Let's discuss them all. It's a free country.

Of course, we can count on the Republicans to attack the messenger; that's a tried and true approach. Bush apologists started attacking Murtha at every turn, right from the get-go: calling him confused and weak, calling him a terrorist sympathizer, calling him a coward, and more. Scott McClellan, "Dick" Cheney, John McCain, Jean Schmidt and Col. Bubp will deny it. Whatever.

For sure, the Democrats must frame the debate in this way:

1. What is meant by victory?
   
2. What is our strategy for attaining that victory?

Along the way, we'll also get the answers to some other difficult questions: Who are we really fighting? What do they want and how can we stop them from getting it?

For his part, Bush is relying on a three-part strategy. And as usual, words speak louder than actions:

1. Lower the bar that defines success.

2. Use weasel words to blur understanding.

3. Do whatever it takes to create a phony boundary between himself (Bush) and his opposition.

Make no mistake: Bush and the rest of the Republicans want out of Iraq. So he's actually happy that Murtha spoke up because it gives Bush the necessary diversion to continue weaseling around while he gets busy bringing the troops home.

Of course, the danger for the Democrats is that Murtha's resolution potentially hands Bush a scapegoat. Should Iraq collapse into civil war or worse, Bush will blame it all on the Democrats.

Moral of the story: Kids, you MUST win Presidential elections.

I had an opportunity to visit New Orleans today and see the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Click below to see the shapshots I took in the city, as well as Chalmette (St. Bernard Parish) and the Lower Ninth Ward.

Rock & roll fans -- see if you can spot the home of Fats Domino Publishing. It's near the end of the show.

Video by Instant Video Generator

I've seen a lot in my time, but I've never seen anything like this: whole blocks of houses splintered into toothpicks, water-stains that are evidence of water 8 feet deep and more, cars on top of houses, houses off their foundations, houses on top of houses, green grass and dead shrubs, barges marooned on dry land, a tent city, and everywhere you look, mountains of debris and a forest of blue roofs.

Seventy-five percent of the residents of Chalmette are gone, probably never to return, but many of them left personal messages on fences and boarded up windows:

• Gone Fishing
  
• Louisiana Politicians: Stuck on Stupid
  
• Goodbye Nawlins, We'll Miss You
  
• Give Peace a Chance

By an odd coincidence, this was also the day that black survivors of the hurricane testified before Congress, saying that racism contributed to the slow disaster response. Pretty shocking claim, you say? Think for a moment about all the things you've heard people say about the victims: they should have known better, they should have evacuated faster, they shouldn't even have been living in that big old soupbowl of a city, and so forth and so on. All of that is true, but I wonder if we'd all be saying the same thing if this disaster had been an earthquake in San Francisco. I think not.

I'm not sure that racism played a primary part in the slow response; but the national attitude of ambivalence and apathy that has settled all to quickly over the Gulf can be laid at the doorstep of ingrained attitudes toward the poor and black citizens of this area.

First, McCain stinks up the joint on Meet The Press:

MR. RUSSERT: You gave an interview to Byron York in the New Republic magazine and he writes this: "John Kerry, McCain says, doesn't have `the strength to see it through.' And John Murtha is `a lovable guy,' but `he's never been a big thinker; he's an appropriator.' ...McCain tells me that Murtha has become too emotional about the human cost of the war. `As we get older, we get more sentimental.'"

That's pretty--you don't think John Kerry has the strength to see the war through?

SEN. McCAIN: That was a bit out of context...

Then, a rumor that Lieberman might replace the Mad Hatter, Donald Rumsfeld, at the Pentagon.

At one point or another, I voted for both of these guys, but...

Never again.

Miss Julie informs me of the sign she saw today near the Wal-Mart in our neighborhood -- it said "Boycott Wal-Mart for taking Christ out of Christmas." She asks, "What do you suppose that is about?"

Oh, darlin'!

I told her that Bill O'Reilly has gone "effing bonkers" (in Atrios' words), accusing the "secular progressives" of a conspiracy to destroy Christianity.

My favorite quote occurs during an interview of O'Reilly by Neil Cavuto. Cavuto suggests that perhaps Wal-Mart says "Happy Holidays" because they are a global corporation with stores in the Far East, i.e., China, Hong Kong, etc, to which O'Reilly replies:

They don't have to say "Merry Christmas" in China, OK? They can say whatever they say in China, "Happy Winter." All right? "We like pandas." Say whatever you want.

See, if Steven Colbert (above, right) has a problem, it is this: no matter how outlandish his shtick is, reality is even more ridiculous.

That said, I need to remind you to read this serious post from Kevin Drum on whether Democrats, liberals and progressives run the risk of further alienating Red-state America by railing against the unfair labor practices of Wal-Mart. In his post, Kevin quotes Ed Kilgore:

In the southern small-town, rural and exurban communities I know best, and among the low-to-moderate income "working family" voters Democrats most need to re-attract, Wal-Mart is considered pretty damn near sancrosanct. And if Democrats decide to tell these voters they can't be good progressives and shop at Wal-Mart, we will lose these people for a long, long time....

Like Kevin says, "Food for thought."

From The Late Show with David Letterman:

10. Make an even larger 'Mission Accomplished' sign

9. Encourage Iraqis to settle their feud like Dave and Oprah

8. Put that go-getter Michael Brown in charge

7. Launch slogan, 'It's not Iraq, it's Weraq'

6. Just do whatever he did when he captured Osama

5. A little more vacation time at the ranch to clear his head

4. Pack on a quick 30 pounds and trade places with Jeb

3. Wait, you mean it ain't going well?

2. Boost morale by doing his hilarious 'Locked Door' gag

1. Place Saddam back in power and tell him, 'It's your problem now, dude'

(HT to Bill from Portland Maine)

Can we at least get the facts straight on the battle of Tal Afar?

Bush:"The assault [Tal Afar] was primarily led by Iraqi security forces -- 11 Iraqi battalions, backed by five coalition battalions providing support."

Michael Ware, Time Magazine: "I was in that battle from the very beginning to the very end. I was with Iraqi units right there on the front line as they were battling with al Qaida. They were not leading. They were being led by the U.S. Green Beret Special Forces with them -- Green Berets who were following an American plan of attack, who were advancing with these Iraqi units as and when they were told to do so by the American battle planners. The Iraqis led nothing."

Some will say this is an example of an embattled President being stabbed in the back by the liberal media. Others will cite it as yet another example of willful deception by the CinC. Maybe the truth lies somewhere in between.

But the fact remains: we're forced to re-visit the same familiar scene -- a Chief Executive who either can or cannot tell the truth.

Think I'm nitpicking, do you? Perhaps. But it is little things like this that erode a President's credibility. And this guy has almost no credibility left to lose.

And another thing: is this an example of the kind of information that we, the taxpayers, are paying $100 million or more to have inserted into Iraqi newspapers?

I'm home sick today -- damn Katrina cough again -- so I was watching a panel discussion on C-Span. The topic? "The Future of the Republican Party." Thinking this was a discussion on the Federal penal system, I was mildly surprised to discover that all the panelists (Kelly Ann Conway, et. al.) picked the same two candidates when asked to name the top three contenders for the 2008 nomination.

Can you guess which two Republican candidates they all picked as the early favorites for the 2008 Republican nomination? You might be surprised.