January 2006 Archives

If you need cheering up, if you need inspiration, if you need a blast of energy to gear up for the next fight, here's what Robert Kennedy had to say, once upon a time:

"Some believe there is nothing one man or one woman can do against the enormous array of the world's ills. Yet many of the world's great movements, of thought and action, have flowed from the work of a single man. A young monk began the Protestant reformation, a young general extended an empire from Macedonia to the borders of the earth, and a young woman reclaimed the territory of France. It was a young Italian explorer who discovered the New World, and the thirty-two-year-old Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that all men are created equal.

"These men moved the world, and so can we all. Few will have the greatness to bend history itself, but each of us can work to change a small portion of events, and in the total of all those acts will be written the history of this generation. It is from numberless diverse acts of courage and belief that human history is shaped. Each time a man stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope, and crossing each other from a million different centers of energy and daring, those ripples build a current that can sweep down the mightiest walls of oppression and resistance.

"Few are willing to brave the disapproval of their fellows, the censure of their colleagues, the wrath of their society. Moral courage is a rarer commodity than bravery in battle or great intelligence. Yet it is the one essential, vital quality for those who seek to change a world that yields most painfully to change. And I believe that in this generation those with the courage to enter the moral conflict will find themselves with companions in every corner of the globe.

"For the fortunate among us, there is the temptation to follow the easy and familiar paths of personal ambition and financial success so grandly spread before those who enjoy the privilege of education. But that is not the road history has marked out for us. Like it or not, we live in times of danger and uncertainty. But they are also more open to the creative energy of men than any other time in history. All of us will ultimately be judged and as the years pass we will surely judge ourselves, on the effort we have contributed to building a new world society and the extent to which our ideals and goals have shaped that effort.

"The future does not belong to those who are content with today, apathetic toward common problems and their fellow man alike, timid and fearful in the face of new ideas and bold projects. Rather it will belong to those who can blend vision, reason and courage in a personal commitment to the ideals and great enterprises of American Society.

"Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny. There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live."

(HT to digby)

I hate to sound Pollyanna and all, but I think we did pretty good, considering how late the movement started and how ragged and disorganized the Democratic Senators were in taking up the fight.

From Digby:

The last time we had a serious outpouring from the grassroots was the Iraq War resolution. My Senator DiFi [Feinstein] commented at the time that she had never seen anything like the depth of passion coming from her constituents. But she voted for the war anyway. So did Bayh, Biden, Clinton, Dodd, Kerry and Reid. The entire leadership of the party.

Every one of them went the other way this time...

This is a dramatic moment for the netroots. Get ready for marginalization, evocations of 1968 and 1972, calls for purging us from the party, the whole thing. That's what happens when the citizens rise up. Don't let it shake your will.

We are the heart of the Democratic party and we can make a difference.

And soon, Congress will re-consider the renewal of the Patriot Act.

Watch this space for more information on how you can get involved in both of these actions.

P.S. I was at a Democratic fundraiser in Baton Rouge over the weekend. During the "table-talk" before the main speaker came on (James Carville, BTW) I cannot tell you how many people there were baffled by the decisions being made at the top levels of the party. What I took away from that gathering was that we, the people, are at least as smart and principled as anyone in Washington.

That said, it would be our fault if we didn't continue to speak up for what we believe in.

• The Onion interviews Stephen Colbert:

  What the right-wing in the United States tries to do is undermine the press. They call the press "liberal," they call the press "biased," not necessarily because it is or because they have problems with the facts of the left—or even because of the bias for the left, because it's hard not to be biased in some way, everyone is always going to enter their editorial opinion—but because a press that has validity is a press that has authority. And as soon as there's any authority to what the press says, you question the authority of the government—it's like the existence of another authority. So that's another part of truthiness.

  Truthiness is "What I say is right, and [nothing] anyone else says could possibly be true." It's not only that I feel it to be true, but that I feel it to be true. There's not only an emotional quality, but there's a selfish quality.

• Sleepless in Seattle gets re-cut...as a horror movie. Watch the trailer.
  
• Man trips on shoelaces in museum, shatters priceless vases.
  Man, I hate when that happens.

From MSNBC:

Heading into Tuesday's State of the Union address and the beginning of the 2006 political season, President Bush faces an electorate that continues to be dissatisfied with his job performance, increasingly wants U.S. soldiers to come home from Iraq, and believes the Republican Party is associated more with special interests and lobbyists, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.

Gah. It gets worse:

only 25 percent say they want to see Bush take the lead role in setting policy for the country, while 49 percent say they prefer Congress.

Bush's response?

“I'll do my best to elevate the tone here in Washington, D.C., so we can work together to achieve big things for the American people,” he said.

What a loser.

I'm not suggesting that Karl Rove held back this video in the vault. I'm not suggesting that he waited until the day before the SOTU to release it. I'm not suggesting that. It would be wrong and unfair to do that.

Nor am I suggesting that al-Zawahri and bin Laden release these in such a way as to boost Bush's approval ratings. I'm not suggesting that they love what Bush has done for al Qaeda recruiting. I'm not suggesting that. It would be wrong and unfair to do so.

That said, don't you just know that Karl Rove, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Republican blog-land, et. al. will have a field day blasting away at Howard Dean and John Kerry after this latest tape release?

Don't you just know it?

[I've bumped this to the top today because there is still a chance that your action can influence the filibuster and cloture vote today, Monday. Scroll down below this for newer posts. Thanks.]

People For The American Way has launched a fax drive to urge key Senators to support the filibuster of Alito's confirmation.

Visit this site and send a fax.

Here's the text of the fax I sent just now to these Senators:

Please sustain the filibuster and vote NO on cloture.

I'm concerned about Judge Alito's views on Presidential power. At a time when this President is gathering more power to his office than I believe the Framers envisioned, Judge Alito stands ready to enable the President to gather even more. His stance on "signing statements" is ominous and it would be a mistake to allow him to ascend to the court and rule on this issue when (not if) it reaches the court for review.

Please sustain the filibuster and vote no on cloture.

I understand that the filibuster is not a tool to be used trivially. Judge Alito is not a trivial threat. As a member of the Legislative branch, you have a the authority and the repsonsibility to exercise your Constitutional power for checks and balances.

I ask you to vote no on cloture of the filibuster of Samuel Alito’s nomination to the United States Supreme Court.

Sincerely,

Ara Rubyan

Alito must be kept off the court.

Fax these Senators today -- don't wait until it is too late.

Abraham Lincoln:

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it.

Alito is all for the President having ultimate power in the fight against terrorism. Many Americans agree. Apparently, they are fearful enough of terrorism that they would (if given the choice) sacrifice a little bit of freedom to get a lot of security.

Ben Franklin had a retort for that: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

But that was over 200 years ago. And who remembers Ben Franklin anyway?

In light of that, Georgia10 has some more up-to-date and real-world reasons why warrantless wiretapping is a bad idea:

• First and foremost, any terror conviction can now be challenged under a "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. Bush acting outside the law has actually made it easier for those charged with terrorism to suppress evidence against them.

• Second, the program is a distraction which wastes critical manpower. FBI agents who are supposed to be chasing down terrorists are, because of this far-reaching scope of this program, investigating ordinary Americans. Under Bush's program, thousands of FBI officers are chasing calls to Pizza Hut rather than chasing sleeper cells who may be planning to attack us.

• Finally--and this is the point the Democrats need to hit, hard--Bush's spying program has not resulted in a single terror lead in the four years it has been implemented. Not one single lead.

Sunday, a U.S. government audit reported that the Coalition Provisional Government-led occupation authorities lost "tens of millions of dollars" allocated for the rebuilding of Iraq through waste and fraud:

Dryly written audit reports describe the Coalition Provisional Authority’s offices (led by Paul Bremer, left, receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom) in the south-central city of Hillah being awash in bricks of $100 bills taken from a central vault without documentation.

It describes one agent who kept almost $700,000 in cash in an unlocked footlocker and mentions a U.S. soldier who gambled away as much as $60,000 in reconstruction funds in the Philippines.

“Tens of millions of dollars in cash had gone in and out of the South-Central Region vault without any tracking of who deposited or withdrew the money, and why it was taken out,” says a report by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, which is in the midst of a series of audits for the Pentagon and State Department.

And, BTW, "tens of millions?" It is far, far worse than that:

Money also disappeared in truckloads and by helicopter. The CPA reportedly distributed funds to contractors in bags off the back of a truck. In one notorious incident in April 2004, $1.5 billion in cash that had just been delivered by three Blackhawk helicopters was handed over to a courier in Erbil, in the Kurdish region, never to be seen again. Afterwards, no one was able to recall the courier’s name or provide a good description of him.

Paul Bremer, meanwhile, had a slush fund in cash of more than $600 million in his office for which there was no paperwork. One U.S. contractor received $2 million in a duffel bag. Three-quarters of a million dollars was stolen from an office safe, and a U.S. official was given $7 million in cash in the waning days of the CPA and told to spend it “before the Iraqis take over.” Nearly $5 billion was shipped from New York in the last month of the CPA. Sources suggest that a deliberate attempt was being made to run down the balance and spend the money while the CPA still had authority and before an Iraqi government could be formed.

From the LA Times:

Despite persistent disillusionment with the war in Iraq, a majority of Americans supports taking military action against Iran if that country continues to produce material that can be used to develop nuclear weapons, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The poll, conducted Sunday through Wednesday, found that 57% of Americans favor military intervention if Iran’s Islamic government pursues a program that could enable it to build nuclear arms.

“I really don’t think Saddam had anything to do with terrorism, but Iran, I believe, does,” said Edward Wtulich, of Goshen, N.Y... “Iran has been a problem, I think, for years,” Wtulich said, “and we’ve known about it.”

Wtulich, a registered Democrat and retired manager for the New York City Housing Authority, said he supported taking a hard line with Iran despite the strain of the Iraq war on the U.S. military.

“It makes me scared,” he said, “but we may not have a choice."

And while we're at war, the President has absolute power.

If, on the other hand, our civilian and military leaders were to send a message that was different, one that didn't involve scaring the bejeesus out of people, do you think the poll number would be that high?

What if they said, "Yeah, the Iranian regime are bad, bad, people, but we are confident that we can contain their threat one way or the other," do you think the majority of people would favor military intervention?

Of course, some would argue that it would be sugar-coating reality. Others would argue that the threat is real.

But at least we'd have a debate. That is, of couse, assuming we have accurate and balanced assessments of what the risks and rewards would be of military intervention of any kind. Riiiight.

“It makes me scared,” he said, “but we may not have a choice."

[I'm moving this older post to the top of the blog today because the vote is next week. Scroll down -- newer posts are below this one.]

Steve Gilliard:

call your elected officials, your Senators and ask them point blank about Friday's Times editorial, the one which claims Alito will vote to overturn Roe, and then ask them if they are going to do anything to stop him.

Please vote NO on Judge Alito's nomination.

I believe that if Judge Alito is confirmed, he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade when the opportunity comes. Nothing in his career has shown me otherwise. There is, instead, plenty in his career to that says he believes that there is no right to abortion. Furthermore, during the hearings, he refused to state that Roe is "settled law," despite many opportunities to do so.

But I'm also concerned about his views on Presidential power. At a time when this President is gathering more power to his office than I believe the Framers envisioned, Judge Alito stands ready to enable the President to gather even more. His stance on "signing statements" is ominous and it would be a mistake to allow him to ascend to the court and rule on this issue when (not if) it reaches the court for review.

Please vote no on Judge Alito.

And you won't know what to tell her.

Call your Senator. Write your Senator. Fax your Senator. Email your Senator. Tell them TODAY to vote NO on Alito.

Senate phone numbers and addresses

Please do it now before it's too late to make any difference:

1. Click the link.

2. Look up your Senator.

3. Get the phone number.

4. Call their office and urge them TODAY to vote NO on Alito.

Just please DO IT NOW.

Thanks.

This whole thing may have been part of Harry Reid's plan all along:

1. Call for a filibuster,
   
2. Force vulnerable Republicans like Chaffee to vote up-or-down on cloture (either way he pisses off RI voters),
   
3. Get another few days of us-versus-them speechifyng,
   
4. Then release the Democratic members of the Gang of 14 to vote yes on cloture.

Fafnir:

Q. Can the president spy on Americans without a warrant?

A. The president has to spy on Americans without a warrant! We're at war, and the president's gotta defend America, and he's not gonna wait for a permission slip from a judge or a senator or America to do it!

Q. That's just the kinda tough, no-nonsense thinking I like in a de facto dictator! Now some crazy people say the president broke some silly old laws like FISA and the National Security Act and the Fourth Amendment. Are these crazy people crazy?

A. They sure are! Maybe those laws worked back in 1978 back when Leonid Brezhnev was snortin coke with Ayatollah Khomeini and groovin to the hits of the Bee Gees, but in today's dark and dangerous times they just aren't enough.

Q. Things sure have changed since the innocent days of mutually assured destruction! But is it legal for the president to ignore the law?

A. Maybe not according to plain ol stupid ol regular law, but we're at war! You don't go to war with regular laws, which are made outta red tape and bureaucracy and Neville Chamberlain. You go to war with great big strapping War Laws made outta tanks and cold hard steel and the American Fightin Man and WAR, KABOOOOOOM!

Q. How does a War Bill become a War Law?

A. It all begins with the president, who submits a bill to the president. If a majority of both the president and the president approve the bill, then it passes on to the president, who may veto it or sign it into law. And even then the president can override himself with a two-thirds vote.

These guys are awesome.

Who cares about Kobe's 81 points? Who cares about Miami and Phoenix? Who cares about the Spurs?

Who cares about the Olympics?

Who cares about the Super Bowl?

[crickets]

Oh, wait -- it's being played in Motown!

Here's the thing: I can't tell which one is stupider -- Bush (for saying it) or the traditional media (for reporting it with a straight face).

This is the POTUS who said "You know, I just don't spend that much time on him to be honest with you." Then when Kerry cried bullshit, Bush denied he said it, winking while accusing Kerry of "one of those ex-agger-ations." The traditional media reported it all with a straight face.

Now this:

“When he says he’s going to hurt the American people again, or try to, he means it,” Bush told reporters after visiting the NSA, where the surveillance program is based. “I take it seriously, and the people of NSA take it seriously.”

So that means we're elevating the threat level...?

No. Not really.

Maybe this is kind of the like the PDB from Aug. 2001: "Bin Laden determined to strike at United States." We know what happened after that. First, nothing. Then all hell broke loose. When it was revealed at the 9/11 hearings, the media reported all of that with a straight face.

Meanwhile...four US Senators seemed to have read the US Constitution, including that part about separation of powers and checks & balances:

“If you or officials in your administration believe that FISA, or any law, does not give you enough authority to combat terrorism, you should propose changes in the law to Congress,” wrote Sens. Harry Reid, Edward Kennedy, Richard Durbin and Russ Feingold. “You may not simply disregard the law.”

I think that boat has left the dock, gentlemen.

Seriously, for that kind of letter to mean anything, there has to be an implied threat of action behind it. And the Democrats have no way of doing that because they are the minority party.

The Legislative branch majority, on the other hand, has the Constitutional authority (and responsibility) to exercise these checks against an out-of-balance Executive branch:

1. Sidetrack the President's agenda
   
2. Cut off funding to relevant programs
   
3. Hold oversight hearings
   
4. Impeach the President

Why? Because the Executive would know that one of the three branches was a weakling and a buck-passer.

Odds n Sods on Thursday morning:

• In 2002, Bush administration OPPOSED legislation to make it easier to wiretap under FISA
  Right: they were for FISA before they were against it.

• Boycott MSNBC's "Hardball"
  Tell the advertisers that you're tired of Chris Matthews smearing US citizens by comparing them to Osama bin Laden.

• Thumb Thing helps you keep books open
  ...one handed, while lounging in bed, leaving one hand free to reach the chips!

• Scientists discover smallest fish species in the world
  OK, but what do you use for bait?

• Surprise! Simon makes contestants cry
  But he did borrow one contestant's cell phone to call her boss and ask him to give her back her job.

• Business 2.0 's 101 Dumbest Moments in Business for 2006
  Grand Prize Winner: the nuthouse-to-yuppie-house trend currently sweeping North America, with such conversions (asylum-to-condo, get it?) also planned in Detroit, New York, Vancouver, and Columbia, S.C., where the centerpiece of the development is an original brick building with the word "Asylum" chiseled into the facade.

• "Freedom is on the march!"
  First, theocracy gains power in Iraq; now, terror group Hamas wins electoral majority in Palestinian elections. Thanks, Mr. President.

I'm on the move so I only have time to reproduce (in full) Kevin Drum's summary of the case as it stands now.

It's pretty good, so please forgive me for copying:

....I'm still confused about a number of things, but as near as I can tell here's the state of play on the NSA's domestic spying program:

1. The administration has acknowledged that the NSA program violated the FISA act. However, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales argues that the Authorization for Use of Military Force, passed shortly after 9/11, superseded FISA.

2. Yesterday, General Michael Hayden said that the reason they had to bypass FISA was because it required a showing of "probable cause" that the target of a wiretap request was a foreign power (i.e., either a terrorist organization or a foreign state). That standard was apparently too difficult to meet in many cases.

3. As Glenn Greenwald reports today, in 2002 congressman Mike DeWine introduced an amendment to FISA that would have retained probable cause as the standard for U.S. persons (i.e., citizens or foreigners with permanent residency) but lowered it to "reasonable suspicion" for non-U.S. persons.

4. Congress refused to pass DeWine's amendment. This makes it plain that Congress did not intend for AUMF to loosen the restrictions of FISA.

So this leaves only the argument that the president's inherent constitutional powers give him the authority to order wiretaps of U.S. citizens even when Congress has passed laws forbidding it.

There is, as near as I can tell, no case law that supports this view.

It's worth noting, by the way, that the administration has been adamant that calls are only monitored if one end of the call is outside the United States. But why not also monitor calls within the United States? Last month General Hayden said simply that "that's where we've decided to draw that balance between security and liberty" — in this case "we" meaning the president and the NSA.

This rather strongly implies that George Bush believes there's nothing stopping him from ordering 100% domestic wiretapping if he feels like it, and nothing Congress can do about it if he does.

So much for Article I Section 8.

From the BBC:

Iraqis and Afghans are the among most optimistic people in the world when it comes to their economic future, a new survey for the BBC suggests.

As if.

Fact is, I'm glad for the Afghans and Iraqis. Not only that: they SHOULD feel better. They SHOULD feel appreciative. We've given them a huge gift: our blood and treasure in return for their freedom and liberty.

Now the question is...what are they going to do with it?

In Saving Private Ryan, Capt. Miller (Tom Hanks) said this about the title character, "He better be worth it. He better go home and cure a disease, or invent a longer-lasting lightbulb."

Similarly, I hope the Iraqis are worth it.

But if they become an Islamic Republic in the orbit of Iran, with the mullahs sitting in judgement of the constitution, then it will all be remembered as a bitter, bitter experience.

Lincoln, a real war President, said it best:

"...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."

I can hear my Republican friends saying, "Why should we impose our values and traditions on the Iraqis? Shouldn't they be free to choose for themselves in a democratic manner?"

I'll be blunt: NO.

We died so they could be free. Now, and in the future, they damn well better be worth it.

"Live! Pandas! Live!"

You can watch live images of Mei Xiang, a giant panda, and her cub, Tai Shan, at the Smithsonian's National Zoo in Washington, D.C.

TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows public sentiment is against the program.

Fifty-one percent of Americans said the administration was wrong to intercept conversations involving a party inside the USA without a warrant. In response to another question, 58% of Americans said they support the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the program. Both questions were asked of about 500 adults Friday through Sunday and have a margin of error of +/-5 percentage points.

P.S. The poll results were buried in an article entitled Surveillance program protects country, Bush says. Damn liberal media.

Too bad this man is not President today:

There is nothing heroic about turning your back on America, or ignoring your own responsibilities. If you want to preserve your own freedom, you must stand up for the freedom of others with whom you disagree. But you also must stand up for the rule of law. You cannot have one without the other.

Laura's bet still has a few days to go and she still needs your help.

Here's what to do to help Laura right now:

1. Click on her photo (upper right).

2. Scroll down to the bottom. You can make a donation with your credit card...

3. ... or with a check.

Thanks.

More about Laura Leyva:

• How you can turn a Red state Blue
  
• Interview with Laura Leyva, candidate for Florida State Legislature
  
• Help Laura Leyva Win Her Bet

Honestly, I don't know why I even bother to do this. That said, here goes:

Dean Esmay:

[A]nother common lie...is that at one point a survey showed that a majority of Americans believed that Saddam was behind 9/11. No scientific poll by any respected polling agency has ever shown that. Ever.

Nearly seven in 10 Americans believe it is likely that ousted Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was personally involved in the Sept. 11 attacks, says a poll out almost two years after the terrorists' strike against this country.

Sorry for the distraction.

My nephew, Ben, was featured last week in "Your Take" on Download.com for a music video he directed and co-produced with musician Phil Snapp.

Check it out!

Terrorists seek two things:

1. Make life a living hell for those they attack.
   Anyone who lost a family member or a friend in the 9/11 attacks knows what I'm talking about. Enough said.

2. Drive a wedge between those allied to fight back at them.
   Three words: divide and conquer. It's an ancient tactic that, today, has a new name: fouth-generation warfare.

When it comes to #2, Karl Rove, Chris Matthews et. al. are helping big-time.

• How Rove is helping: by asserting that Democrats are treasonous traitors.
  
• How Matthews is helping: by comparing bin Laden to Michael Moore, an American exercising his Constitutional rights to free speech.
  
• How Joe Scarborough is helping: by asserting that you are either with President Bush or you are with the terrorists.

They've won because they will have destroyed America by destroying what we stand for: the freedom to say what we think no matter if it agrees with official government policy.

Ours is a government of the people, for the people and by the people as enshrined in the US Constitution. As such, we must always, always, always fight to defend it against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

Those that tell you otherwise are simply asking you to defend George W. Bush.

Now DAT'S what I'm talkin bout.

P.S. You can't MAKE this stuff up fast enough!

The best defense is a good offense. Are you surprised?

"Because the President has determined that the NSA activities are necessary to the defense of the United States from a subsequent terrorist attack in the armed conflict with al Qaeda, FISA would impermissibly interfere with the President’s most solemn constitutional obligation – to defend the United States against foreign attack."

But Al Gore has already thought about this and formulates the central question that is on everybody's mind:

Can it be true that any president really has such powers under our Constitution? If the answer is "yes" then under the theory by which these acts are committed, are there any acts that can on their face be prohibited? If the President has the inherent authority to eavesdrop, imprison citizens on his own declaration, kidnap and torture, then what can't he do?

We'll see them all in court.

(HT to Glenn Greenwald)

Our troops need better helmets in order to survive new and ingeniously lethal attacks from insurgents in Iraq.

Simply put: the old helmets are not designed for the kind of combat our troops are facing in Iraq.

Operation Helmet is collecting donations in order to buy the helmets and provide them free-of-charge to the troops who request them. Operation Helmet is a 501-C3 organization, which means contributions are tax-deductible.

Each helmet costs $99.06. Please donate that amount if you can.

Please click here to donate to this cause.

Don't wait -- The life you save may save another! Please donate now.

Because the Commander in Chief doesn't care enough to see to it that he's captured once and for all.

Besides -- how do I put this delicately -- as long as bin Laden is attacking targets in other countries, Bush is an indirect benficiary of his ongoing high-profile survival. In other words, bin Laden is actually good for business because without a monster like that whipping up fear, Bush's job just got a whole lot harder.

We already know that the reverse is also true: Bush has actually been good for bin Laden's business -- passions are high, recruitment is up.

Both sides need an enemy to maintain power.

The title of this post is lifted from some graffiti I saw as a teenager growing up in Detroit. I was always intrigued by it and much later on, I decided it would make a great epitaph or perhaps even the title of my autobiography (Vol. 1).

(The image on the left [click it] has a similar look and feel. It's from a show featuring murals by local graffiti artists at the Shrangi-La Gallery in the Atlas Building on Gratiot.)

In any case, I recently came across Detroit Blog, which is devoted to "all things Detroit: politics, urban exploration, news, photos, and commentary about the city."

The authors loves Detroit, "even the old Detroit of blight, waste and emptiness. Hockeytown. Motown. I grew up here, had my best times here. It’s my home."

I don't live there any more myself, but I'm proud to say I did grow up (and lived much of my life) there. My kids were born there and my mother still lives there.

Once upon a time, Detroit was American industry. Detroit was American music. Detroit was American sports. Some of the most interesting and vital people in American history are from Detroit.

Me? I'm a proud product of Detroit Public Schools, and if you've got a problem with that, why don't we step outside and discuss it?

I guess as long as any of my family still live there, I'll miss it.

P.S. You can take the boy out of the city...and so forth and so on.

And if he does, isn't he better off not having enough votes to defeat a cloture motion?

What's the upside of filibustering and forcing a vote on cloture? For one thing, he forces moderate Republican Lincoln Chaffee to vote one way or the other. If Chaffee, locked in a close battle for re-election, votes FOR cloture, Reid figures he'll alienate Democrats he needs back home to win the general election. If he votes AGAINST cloture, Reid figures he'll alienate Republicans he needs back home to win a potential primary. Either way, Reid might pick up a seat for the Democrats.

Is there a downside to Reid and Senate Dems in doing this? Not that I can see. Reid even has a built-in safety net -- a way to smack Chaffee and not have Frist drop the nuclear bomb on the Senate. Reid simply releases the Democrats in the Gang of 14 to vote for cloture.

Upside -- Chaffee, out. Downside -- none that I can see.

But wouldn't it better filibuster Alito and actually succeed in keeping him off the SCOTUS? Well...yes and no.

Reid has got to figure that Frist will drop the bomb on the filibuster, ending them for all time. Not a good thing. Especially if the Senate stays Republican after the '06 election. Or if one of the Justices dies before then. Or if Bush puts up another extremist in Alito's place.

Imagine Bush nominating, say, Karl Rove, or his pickup truck (or nominating Karl Rove's pickup truck) for a seat on the SCOTUS? Without the possibility of a Democratic filibuster, this is not a pretty picture -- there'd be NO WAY to stop Bush from going buck-wild.

No.

The downside to a successful Alito filibuster is pretty steep.

Unless....

...Reid is willing to try to use it as a campaign issue such that the Dems actually capture the Senate (and the White House too, in 2008). But there's a lot of if's in that scenario. And even though Reid is from Nevada, I don't think he's THAT much of a gambler.

So here it is:

For Reid and the Senate Dems, actually HAVING enough votes to sustain a filibuster is a much tougher decision than NOT HAVING enough votes.

(HT to Leon H)

From Carville & Begala:

As any average person will tell you, the heart of the problem [of corruption in politics] is that elected officials take money from interested parties.

Whether it's technically legal or not, accepting money as a public servant is a form of bribery, and it serves to fundamentally corrupt democracy.

We don't let cops, customs agents, or federal judges take money from the people they're serving. We should hold elected officials to the same standards. They should be out of the fundraising business altogether.

Yeah, I know what you're thinking -- we tried it before. It doesn't work.

But listen up: if nothing else, you should read their piece because you might learn something about how the system really works, not how the civics books explain it.

Here's the PowerPoint outline:

• First, raise congressional pay big time.

• In return, Congress cannot take anything of value from anyone other than a family member. No lunches, no taxi rides. No charter flights. No golf games. No ski trips. No nothing.

• When it is campaign time, incumbents would be under a complete ban on raising money. No president or member of Congress could accept a single red cent from individuals, corporations, or special interests. No nothing.

• Challengers would be allowed to raise money in any amount from any individual American citizen or political action committee. No limits -- as long as they report it electronically, within 24 hours, with full public access to the info.

• Almost every cent raised by the challenger would also be granted to the incumbent -- by the US Treasury.

• Similarly, if an incumbent wants to use his own money, fine. An equal amount will be granted to his challenger -- by the US Treasury.

• If a sitting congressman wants to run for senator, or a senator wants to run for president, they would be allowed to raise funds -- once they have resigned their seat.

• Penalties for violating this system would be swift and awful: Incumbents would be thrown out of office and challengers would be eliminated from running.

Today more than 90 percent of all senators and representatives are re-elected. Under current law, incumbents almost always have a huge money advantage.

Our wager is that a majority of incumbents would be willing to give up that advantage in exchange for higher pay and no time spent fundraising.

Think about it. Not only would they be bringing in a much larger salary, they'd also never have to kiss up to another rich donor. You should never underestimate how much these folks hate spending half their time—or more—sniveling for money. Nor should you underestimate how damaging and distorting it is to require federal office holders to spend that time raising money. No wonder they vote on so much legislation without ever reading it.

And what about the public? We haven't seen the final data for 2004, but in all the federal races in 2000—congressional, senatorial, and presidential—candidates spent a total of $1.6 billion. Half of that, which is what taxpayers would have had to shell out under our plan, would be a lot of money: $800 million.

But that is nothing compared to what the current system costs us.

Those special interests who pour money into politicians' campaigns get something in return. Actually, they get a lot in return. Special tax breaks, special loopholes, special funding of pork-barrel projects, maybe even a no-bid contract or two. The energy bill passed in 2005 handed $2 billion in subsidies to the ethanol industry—you know, the fine folks at Archer Daniels Midland. It gave the makers of the controversial fuel additive MTBE another $2 billion. And another $8.1 billion in tax breaks for oil, coal, and electric utilities. In all, that one bill cost you $80.8 billion.

All of a sudden $800 million—one percent of the cost of one bill—doesn't seem like very much money, does it?

But it's a fascinating idea, not the least because it gives you a pretty good idea of how things really are, not the way we wish them to be.

• Disney is considering making a buyout offer for Pixar.
  If that happens, Steve Jobs would become the largest single shareholder at Disney. And it would presumably put him ahead of Howard Stern for the title of King of All Media.

• Google is going to roll out a program that will enable marketers to send advertisements directly to local radio stations.
  Wrap your head around that.

Snap!

France said on Thursday it would be ready to launch a targeted nuclear strike against any state that carried out a terrorist attack on French soil.

Jon Stewart takes a look at the race to fill Delay's spot.

Click here to watch the video.

Tony Danza reads Chuck Norris Facts to Chuck Norris.

(HT to Xeni)

What is it with these Executive branch bullies?

From Good Morning Silicon Valley, John Paczkowski writes this:

The Department of Justice on Wednesday asked a federal judge to order Google to comply with a subpoena issued last year for search records stored in its databases. The DOJ argues that the information it has requested, which includes one million random Web addresses and records of all Google searches from a one-week period, is essential to its upcoming defense of the constitutionality of the Child Online Protection Act. Google has so far refused to comply with the subpoena, saying the release of such information would violate the privacy of its users. "Google is not a party to this lawsuit, and the demand for the information is overreaching,'' Nicole Wong, an associate general counsel for Google, told The Mercury News. "[We plan to fight the government's effort] "vigorously.''

On Fox News Sunday, Chris Wallce interviewed the three Republican Congressmen vying for Delay's vacant Majority Leader position (because DeLay is under indictment).

Surprise! All three have ethical problems but apparently there's ethical and then there's "ethical."

Click here to watch John Shadegg explain why he's the best man for the job.

Shadegg: I think my record, the level of taint is dramatically different than either of them

UPDATE:
The Daily Show's Ed Helms responds to Shadegg's claims of, "the level of taint."

Helms: When Tom Delay or Bob Ney walks into the gym, people can't help but whisper, "Jesus-God!" Would you look at the size of that taint!"

I knew this would be interesting:

ZAHN: But would the U.S. government have a reason...

HITCHENS: Warrantless wiretapping -- warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.
And can I just say that your reporter was exactly right when he said that, until this was outed, the administration had no comment. You and I are not supposed to be having this conversation. We're not supposed to know that this is even a controversy. Well, now we do. And now the administration has changed its tone.
It doesn't say it's treason to be talking about it. It is going to have hearings in Congress next month, as it should have already, and it's going to face a lawsuit.

HITCHENS: Well, frivolous, none of us are. I don't think our worst enemies would say that of us.
We're filing in the Eastern District of Michigan, which is the district, which in 1972, ruled that warrantless wiretapping of Americans was unconstitutional. And the Supreme Court eventually upheld that. It is called the Keith case. It did a lot of damage to the horrific Richard Nixon.
And, remember, when you think of that name, any power you give now to any government or administration or any right you surrender to it is surrendered for good. All future administrations can use that power any way they like. Is it no good to say, we're only using it to stop attacks, when they used to say, we're not doing it at all.

HITCHENS: What are they ashamed of?

ZAHN: Christopher, is there any instance where you would support domestic spying or unauthorized wiretaps in this war on terror?

HITCHENS: Well, you ask me domestic spying and all unauthorized wiretaps, that's tough.
Let me put it like this. There are people I can think of easily within the United States who the president should be impeached if he wasn't wiretapping [them]. If you feel that you're on to someone or some group like that, you can wiretap them for 72 hours and still go to a judge and still ask for an authorization. It's still legal to do that.

ZAHN: Sure.

HITCHENS: That's pretty wide, I would say. And, therefore, if you feel to that extent, I'm ready to sleep at night. But you notice that those who support this policy, which they kept secret from us until recently, now say, well, actually, we don't really like the original act at all. We -- we don't like the FISA that guarantees this or the courts that it sets up.
Well, in that case, they must go to Congress and ask for it to be changed. They can't act as if it's a law, but they don't have to obey it.

Mystery Pollster gathers some more polling numbers on Bush:

SUSA:
41% approve and 56% disapprove

Harris:
43% as "excellent or good", 56% as "only fair or poor."

These results go along with the others.

The outcome? Look out Iran!

New visitors to this blog came here this month after typing in the following words or phrases into a search engine:

1. [Variations on] e pluribus unum
   No mystery here.

2. lightbulb
   Got me on this one. Could this be related to Tom Hanks' line in Saving Private Ryan?

3. bulge
   Bush's mysterious back-bulge during the debates...?

4. top ten chuck norris facts
   Google puts us #4 on the list of URLs. Heh.

5. filibuster alito
   [shrug] Have I gone on and on about that? Apparently so.

6. larry orlansky
   For his letter, New Orleans Must Be Rebuilt. P.S. -- We're ranked #1 when you google his name. Wonder if he knows?

7. gore is an idiot
   Bwah! I simply asked a question -- Gore: Genius or Idiot? For that, we get listed #2.

8. bernard mcgurk
   Imus' bald-headed stooge could be the originator of the phrase, "Is Bush a liar or a dope?" One of my favorite imponderable questions and enough to earn us #5 when you google bernie's name.

9. give me liberty or give me death
   Yes, I've been saying this a lot lately. Not sure where google ranks us on that phrase, but if it brought people here, so be it.

10. what does leadership mean
    Related to a post that quoted Chris Matthews. Google ranked us #8 for the phrase.

Looking at the potential Democratic field in 2008, University of Virginia Prof. Larry Sabato likes a Warner-Bayh ticket:

In the deeply Red Hoosier state [Indiana], Bayh has won two landslide elections as governor and two as senator. These eleven Midwestern electoral votes, possibly combined with the twenty from neighboring Ohio, might be deducted from the GOP and added to the Democratic column by Bayh--making a Republican presidential victory difficult mathematically.

A Warner-Bayh or Bayh-Warner ticket could be well nigh unbeatable, with Warner adding Virginia's thirteen electoral votes and probably West Virginia's five. The total of forty-nine electoral votes from these four Red states (OH, IN, VA, WV) would be nearly impossible for the GOP to make up, should this come to pass. Republicans need not worry: The Virginia-Indiana pairing makes so much political sense that the Democrats will never actually do it.

Sabato absolutely thinks Hillary would be a disaster, being the furthest thing from electable that the Dems could come up with.

Of course, Democrats played the electability card in 2004 and it got us John Kerry and oblivion. Why would they want to do that again?

Miss Julie and I are always casting characters in books or documentary films with well-known actors. Recently we were watching How to Draw a Bunny, a documentary about artist Ray Johnson. I suggested that John Malkovich would be perfect in the role. Creepily enough, during the final credits, we discovered that Malkovich was the executive producer.

Can I pick em or what?

We've even gone so far as to cast the actor who should play me in the imaginary movie based on my life. We both settled on Alfred Molina. Right.

Now, it seems there is a site called My Heritage that is developing software (now in beta) that compares your photo with their database and comes up with some matches.

Me?

Christian Slater (the eyebrows?) 61%
Michel Platini (?) 47%
Marshall McLuhan 47%
Andrei Sakharov 44%
George Martin 43%
Ralph Nader 43%
Bjarne Stroustrup (?) 43%
Edmund Stoiber (?) 40%
....and last but not least:
Fidel Castro! 39%

And for Miss Julie:

Halle Berry 67% (I kid you not!)
Marianne Faithfull 65%
Sofia Coppola 65%
Hilary Swank 63%
Kirsten Dunst 63%
Helena Bonham Carter 62%
Charlize Theron 62%

Gentlemen, I am blessed.

P.S. OK, OK, a few false positives:

Miss Julie:
Roger Moore
Kenneth Branagh (redhead)
Whoopi Goldberg

Me:
Susan Sontag (definitely not a hair thing)

(HT to Double Plus Ungood who clocks in with Gary Oldman, Danny Kaye, John Travolta, Richard Strauss, Edward Elgar, Billy Bob Thorton, Stephen Spielberg, Ehud Barak, and/or Nikolaus Harnoncourt. False positive: Ayn Rand.)

Bush has admitted that he broke the law by refusing to get FISA warrants for his wiretaps. He justified this by saying that during wartime, the President has the power to do whatever is necessary to protect the American people.

So...what's stopping him from taking your guns?

P.S. Please don't lecture me on hypocrisy. If you know anything at all about me, you know that I am a believer in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

I also believe in the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure and he's already violated that, as well as the FISA law and Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution.

So, I ask again: what's stopping Bush from taking your guns?

Speaking to an audience at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem, Hillary Clinton let the Bush administration have it with both barrels:

The House [of Representatives] “has been run like a plantation, and you know what I’m talking about,” said Clinton, D-N.Y. “It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard.”

“We have a culture of corruption, we have cronyism, we have incompetence,” she said. “I predict to you that this administration will go down in history as one of the worst that has ever governed our country.”

A president who breaks the law is a threat to the very structure of our government. Our Founding Fathers were adamant that they had established a government of laws and not men. Indeed, they recognized that the structure of government they had enshrined in our Constitution - our system of checks and balances - was designed with a central purpose of ensuring that it would govern through the rule of law. As John Adams said: "The executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them, to the end that it may be a government of laws and not of men."

It's becoming clear that opposition to Bush's warrantless wiretapping is not at all a partisan thing. When you have Bob Barr and Al Gore joining forces against it, you know there is something more to this than the usual partisan bickering.

Only Bush's bed-wetting apoligists persist in seeing this as a politically-motivated attack on Dear Leader.

But as Glenn Greenwald said:

Bush followers are not conservative; they are devoted solely to the aggrandizement and glorification of George Bush. It is more of a personality cult than it is a political ideology. There is a strong anti-government sentiment which still runs deep in traditional conservatives – that is why Bob Barr and so many other actual conservatives have spoken out, in many cases more aggressively than Democrats have, against Bush’s lawless eavesdropping. Those fissures on the Right from this issue can be and should be exploited in order to prevent this scandal from being cast as the latest partisan bickering or as the by-product of liberal opposition to strong anti-terrorist measures.

And now this...

The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights are suing the Bush administration in the first major court challenges to the warrantless eavesdropping program:

Also named as plaintiffs in the A.C.L.U. lawsuit are the journalist Christopher Hitchens, who has written in support of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; Barnett R. Rubin, a scholar at New York University who works in international relations; Tara McKelvey, a senior editor at The American Prospect; the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers; Greenpeace, the environmental advocacy group; and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the country's largest Islamic advocacy group.

I can't wait to see his next appearance on barking-head cable TV.

(Click image, left, to watch video excerpts in WMP. Click here to watch in QT.)

Today, the American Constitution Society and the Liberty Coalition hosted a speech by Fmr. Vice Pres. Al Gore at the DAR Hall in Washington. Gore spoke about the limits of executive power, the issue of warrantless monitoring of domestic communications and the authorization of the use of torture in the war against terrorism:

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of missiles poised to be launched against us and annihilate our country at a moment's notice? Is America in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-when our fathers fought and won two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same.

CIA analysts who strongly disagreed with the White House assertion that Osama bin Laden was linked to Saddam Hussein found themselves under pressure at work and became fearful of losing promotions and salary increases.

Ironically, that is exactly what happened to FBI officials in the 1960s who disagreed with J. Edgar Hoover's view that Dr. King was closely connected to Communists. The head of the FBI's domestic intelligence division said that his effort to tell the truth about King's innocence of the charge resulted in he and his colleagues becoming isolated and pressured. "It was evident that we had to change our ways or we would all be out on the street.... The men and I discussed how to get out of trouble. To be in trouble with Mr. Hoover was a serious matter. These men were trying to buy homes, mortgages on homes, children in school. They lived in fear of getting transferred, losing money on their homes, as they usually did. ... so they wanted another memorandum written to get us out of the trouble that we were in."

The Constitution's framers understood this dilemma as well, as Alexander Hamilton put it, "a power over a man's support is a power over his will." (Federalist No. 73)

Soon, there was no more difference of opinion within the FBI. The false accusation became the unanimous view. In exactly the same way, George Tenet's CIA eventually joined in endorsing a manifestly false view that there was a linkage between al Qaeda and the government of Iraq.

In the words of George Orwell: "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield."

Delivered on the steps at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington D.C. on August 28, 1963.

Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.

One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.

So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

President Bush’s job approval rating has slipped into "a post-holiday funk," whatever that means.

P.S. Woo hoo! Rasmussen has Bush at 45/53.

Mystery Pollster says this:

The five conventional national surveys released [last] week show an average 42% approval, so the Pew Center is about as much of an outlier (38%) on the low end as the ABC/Washington Post poll is on the high end (46%).

A rather modest statement, actually:

BLITZER: Should there be a change in attitude after 9/11?

BERGEN: I think the short answer is no. I mean, the nation has faced much more serious crises than 9/11.

We faced an existential crisis in the Cold War and with the Nazis; 9/11, obviously, was a very big deal, but I think we need to have some perspective.

We're not in a situation where our enemies can simply annihilate us as the Soviets could. Certainly, they can do us a lot of damage. But we have to, sort of, weigh that against the fact that we also want to live in a society where constitutional -- the Constitution is paid attention to.

I wonder how many Republicans believe what that wanker Sen. Cornyn said: “None of your civil liberties matter much after you’re dead.”

Me? I'm with Sen. Feingold: "Give me liberty or give me death."

(HT to Digby)

This morning, I noticed that a new Zogby Poll shows a majority of Americans (52/43) support this statement:

"If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

But is that a reason to ignore the results?

No. You read the question. It's pretty straightforward. And the fact is, no one has heard of the organization that hired Zogby in the first place.

Instead of getting bogged down in who commissioned the poll, we might be better instructed to ask ourselves this question: "How is it that we are considering the third Presidential impeachment in thirty years?"

Is Congress out of control? Are we criminalizing politics?

Or is there something in the modern Presidency that demands a strong reaction from the Legislative branch?

If you're reading this now, you already know the answer.

I haven't seen Spielberg's Munich (although my son has). And I generally don't agree with (or even respect) anything Charles Krauthammer writes anymore. But his op-ed in the Post got my attention:

Spielberg makes the Holocaust the engine of Zionism and its justification. Which, of course, is the Palestinian narrative. Indeed, it is the classic narrative for anti-Zionists, most recently the president of Iran, who says that Israel should be wiped off the map. And why not? If Israel is nothing more than Europe's guilt trip for the Holocaust, then why should Muslims have to suffer a Jewish state in their midst?

It takes a Hollywood ignoramus to give flesh to the argument of a radical anti-Semitic Iranian. Jewish history did not begin with Kristallnacht. The first Zionist Congress occurred in 1897. The Jews fought for and received recognition for the right to establish a "Jewish national home in Palestine" from Britain in 1917 and from the League of Nations in 1922, two decades before the Holocaust.

And those who liken the Palestinians' historial plight to that of Native Americans also have it wrong. In reality, it is the Israelis who are the Indians -- the Indians at Little Big Horn.

Over at Boing Boing, Xeni breaks off the funniest line of the week:

Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Jonathan Sharkey prefers to be known as "the Impaler". Like other politicians, he worships Satan, but Sharkey "doesn't hide his dark side."

I said in an earlier post that I thought that the hearings were boring and pointless. They are.

But that doesn't change what I also believe: that the Democrats must fight his confirmation with whatever weapons they have. Sadly, this would seem to be limited to voting NO in a block and then losing 55-45. But at least they would have made a point: that Alito is outside the mainstream and that his ascension to the SCOTUS is against all the things that Democrats stand for.

From the Lion in Winter:

Geoffrey: 'You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down.'
Richard: 'When the fall's all that's left, it matters a great deal.'

Sorry everyone, but I've passed on my chance to watch the hearings because, well, they bore the crap out of me. The man is going to be confirmed, so what's the point?

1. He'll (at least) be confirmed via a straight party line vote. Even if the Dems all vote no (which I wish they would) he's in.

2. The filibuster thing won't happen because the Gang of 14 has that locked away.

3. The whole confirmation process is so 19th century. There ought to be more modern ways to reveal the character and background of a nominee. How about majority- and minority-produced films about him? How about if he is required to make the rounds of talk shows across the spectrum -- including the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, Air America as well as Limbaugh and Hannity.

4. And the Senators themselves? Hopeless blowhards, every single one of them. Too talkative.

5. Lindsay Graham? Working the murder board at the White House?? WTF???

6. Besides, we already have Bush to interpret the US Constitution for us -- why do we need yet another SCOTUS Justice?

From the Pew Poll (Jan. 4-8):

[T]he Democratic Party holds a sizable advantage over the GOP as the party better able to handle the country's most important problem. Fully 41% believe the Democratic Party can do a better job of handling the nation's top problem, compared with 27% who say the Republican Party. This represents a major shift from a year ago, when the public split about evenly on which party could better address the most important national problem.

Clearly, if Democrats could convincingly say, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself," they could go a long way to showing that the Emperor has no clothes.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Pew has Bush's approval/disapproval at 38/54, unchanged since December's poll.

P.S. Rasmussen has Bush at 44/55, a change of net -10 points since Christmas. Worse yet for Bush are the "strongly approve/strongly disapprove" numbers -- 23/39.

Blecch. So much for "Bush is roaring back!" I guess there aren't enough military academies for him to give speeches at, eh?

Only nine days left to help Laura Leyva win her bet. As of Wednesday afternoon, she's raised just under $650, so she has a ways to go to beat her $2,500 goal.

Please throw some money her way -- she's bright, energetic and has a decent chance to win an open seat as a Democrat in Florida's Legislative District 107.

Here's a piece I wrote about her campaign. And here's a link to the interview I did with her a while back.

And of course, you can always click on her picture in the upper right corner of this blog.

Take a minute and send her a few bucks right now. How hard is that? You can help turn a red state blue. How bad could that be?

Those of you that want to read this blog via a web-based news reader can now choose from several popular choices listed below. You can also find these links near the bottom of my sidebar, just below the Search box.

Just curious -- how many of you do this and what readers do you use?

Subscribe to E Pluribus Unum
(via Feedburner)

(also via Feedburner)

I'll be blunt: they bore the crap out of me. I mean, really, who cares? We've already got George Bush to interpret the US Constitution for us. Why do we need yet another Supreme Court Justice?

(HT to Steven Colbert)

The Campaign for America's Future is running a TV ad calling for Tom DeLay's resignation from Congress. Among other things, they say that DeLay took "one million dollars from Russian tycoons to allegedly influence his vote." DeLay is threatening to sue any station that runs the ad.

Whatever.

Personally, I think resignation would not be enough. Jail would not be enough. Being banned from all future contact with members of Congress would not be enough.

I won't be satisfied until the authorities treat DeLay like a convicted sex offender: every time he moves to a new house, postcards should be sent out to his neighbors informing them that "Tom DeLay has moved into your neighborhood."

It occurs to me:

• If I'm John McCain, wouldn't I be (at least privately) bitter about the recent treatment I got from Bush?
  Think about it: McCain campaigns for Bush when it really counts, he backs Bush's Iraq policy, he virtually becomes a Bush clone on gay rights and abortion, and so forth. Then, when McCain's signature anti-torture amendment passes (despite Cheney's opposition), Bush reluctantly gives in, but not until issuing a statement saying that none the restrictions apply to the Chief Executive if he so chooses.

  McCain is still the toast of the traditional media, but (to me) he looks like Bush's butt-boy now. Hey John -- was it worth it? Do you really think this will get you the nomination in '08?

• Larry Sabato thinks the Republican nomination for President in '08 is dangerously wide-open at this time.
  As for me, I think it doesn't matter who they nominate. The party's policies on tax-cuts (who doesn't want one?), culture-wars (the queers are coming for your children!), and terrorism (we're all gonna die unless you vote for me) are enough to give any Republican nominee an advantage from the get-go. The Democrats, OTOH, usually wait until a nominee emerges before crafting party policy.

  Despite that, Sabato also believes that after eight years of Bush, the country will be ready for a change. Again, I disagree. In 1988, the people voted for Bush 41 after eight years of Reagan. And the fact that his opponent was Michael Dukakis probably only reinforces my point.

• In order to start winning elections again, the Democrats must again invoke the memory and attitude of FDR.
  I don't mean they campaign on bringing back "big government." I mean that the Dems must remind people that the only thing they have to fear is fear itself.

  Bush and the Republicans have managed to continue to win elections by relying on a climate of fear and hysteria. I hope that more than one future historian will encapsulate this decade by recalling this recent exchange in the US Senate:

  “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.

  I say I hope that becomes the indelible memory, but I wonder sometimes. Are Democrats capable of reminding people that we have a tradition of brave and resolute behavior in the face of threats from the outside world? Can people be motivated by a clarion call for the protection of their own civil liberties?

  Or will people continue to react to the nightmares, terrors and hysteria whipped up by Bush's Republicans?

A President can declare war at will after which there is no limit to what he can do because, you see, there's a war on.

--John Yoo, more or less

(HT to Busy Busy Busy)

There aren't too many Senators with more Republican street cred than Sam Brownback of Kansas. So when he expresses doubts about the legality of the President's warrant-less snooping, well, look out:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Are you confident that the administration has acted lawfully in this case?

BROWNBACK: I think we need to hold hearings on it and we’re going to. Both in the intelligence committee, there will be closed hearings and then the judiciary committee will have open hearings.

I think we need to look at this case and this issue. I am troubled by what the basis for the grounds that the administration says that they did these on, the legal basis, and I think we need to look at that far more broadly and understand it a great deal.

I think this is something that bears looking into and us to be able to establish a policy within constitutional frameworks of what a president can or cannot do.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You don’t think the 9/11 resolution gave the president the authority for this program?

BROWNBACK: It didn’t, in my vote. I voted for that resolution. That was a week after 9/11. There was nothing you were going to do to stop us from going to war in Afghanistan, but there was no discussion in anything that I was around that that gave the president a broad surveillance authority with that resolution.

What's interesting is the dual opposition to Bush from the Legislative as well as the Judicial branches of the Federal Government.

Sharon breathing on own

Cheney hospitalized for shortness of breath

(Click the image, left, to view the video)

Howard Dean speaks bluntly:

BLITZER: Should Democrats who took money from Jack Abramoff...give that money to charity or give it back?

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

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

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

BLITZER: What about Senator Byron Dorgan?

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

BLITZER: About a month ago, Senator Joe Lieberman, the former Democratic vice presidential nominee spoke out, urging his fellow Democrats, including yourself, to restrain themselves in criticizing the president's position on Iraq. Listen to what Lieberman said.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: It's time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander-in-chief for three more critical years, and that, in matters of war, we undermine presidential credibility at our nation's peril.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: What do you think? Is that advice good advice from Senator Lieberman?

DEAN: No. This president has lacked credibility almost from the day he took office because of the way he took office.

He's not reached out to other people. He's shown he's willing to abuse his power. He's not consulted others. And he's not interested in consulting any others.

And I think, frankly, that Joe is absolutely wrong, that it is incumbent on every American who is patriotic and cares about their country to stand up for what's right and not go along with the president, who is leading us in a wrong direction.

We're going in the wrong direction, economically, at home; we're going in the wrong direction abroad.

In short: if you keep doing what you've always done, you'll keep getting what you've always gotten.

But what about the war?

BLITZER: Let's talk a little bit about Iraq. The president sought to reach out to some of his critics earlier in the week, bringing in some former secretaries of state, including Madeleine Albright, among others -- William Cohen, the former defense secretary during the Clinton administration.

Are you satisfied right now that the president's getting enough information from a variety of sources to better move forward as far as the situation in Iraq is concerned?

DEAN: Well, most of the reports that came out of that meeting, Wolf, were that the president engaged in a filibuster of his own in there. He talked at them for some time and then went in for a photo op and really didn't bother to ask most of them for their advice at all.

So, I think these photo op ideas that he's going to get advice and they're really nothing more than photo ops -- I think we're in a big pickle in Iraq.

The president, frankly -- I was disgusted when I read in the New York Times yesterday that 80 percent of the torso injuries and fatalities in the Marine Corps could have been prevented if the Pentagon, the secretary of defense and the president had supplied them with armor that they already had.

They requested that from the field; the Pentagon refused. You know, I, two years ago, thought Secretary Rumsfeld ought to resign. He ought to resign.

These people are not qualified. They haven't served themselves; they don't know what it takes. They ought to protect our troops. Our troops are doing a hell of a job and they deserve better leadership in Washington than what they're getting.

I was incensed when I saw that story, 80 percent of the torso- based wounds that led to fatalities in the Marine Corps -- surely our Marines are worth something more than that.

I'm stuck at home with pneumonia and can't be with my mother on her birthday -- she lives 1400 miles away in Detroit. My sisters and brother are there and I'll miss them too.

I made the following 2-minute video in her honor. My son is going to take the DVD over to show her. Hope they (and you) enjoy it.

P.S. I'm in it -- see if you can pick me out. I'm the butterball in the sailor suit.

Love you Mom. Sorry I couldn't be there.

(HT to the unbelievably easy-to-use Instant Video Generator)

Today's must-read is from Glenn Greenwald:

Isn’t it rather extraordinary to observe the Congress pass a much-debated bill [McCain's anti-torture bill] which the Administration vigorously opposed, and watch the President sign it into law, only for the Administration, on the very same day, to actually come right out and say that the President "may have to waive the law’s restrictions"?

Since when do we have a system of Government where the President can simply "waive" away laws?

...to talk about another bungled war.

Is that creepy or what?

P.S. You must see Fog of War. Really -- I'm thinking of making it required viewing for anyone reading this blog.

I'm serious.

I'm going to bed. I promise I'll have more on this tomorrow.

Pneumonia?!

Friday morning update:
All of you men who hate going to the doctor -- pay attention here: my life is a cautionary tale for you.

After two months of "Katrina Cough," and after a nasty bout with a sinus infection in the spring of '05, I've gotten used to visiting the doc when something doesn't feel right. Also, what the hell, I have an OK health plan.

Anyway, I went to the doctor on Thursday morning only after enduring 3 days of severe back pain. My mother's 80th birthday is Sunday and Miss Julie and I were flying up to Michigan for the festivities. But with the way my back felt, no way was I getting on a plane without some serious pain medication.

"How'd you hurt your back?" asked the doc.

"Honestly, I think it's from coughing on and off for 4 months. I finally coughed so much I pulled a muscle in my back. I'll bet you that knocked a vertabrae out of alignment which pinched a nerve."

The doc suggested that the cough -- a dry cough, really -- might be a side-effect of blood pressure medication I'm taking.

"Your chest sounds fine," he says after examining me with the stethoscope. "I'm going to give you some pain meds to help you get through the trip, but I also want to make sure that we check every possibility with that cough. So I'd like you to get a couple of X-rays. If I see anything unusual, I'll call you later. Otherwise, have a nice trip and I'll see you next week."

I crawl to the pharmacy, get the pain meds and then crawl home. I'm napping when Miss Julie comes in with the phone. "It's the doctor. He says you have pneumonia."

Say what?

"The radiologist looked at the X-ray and you have a consolidation on the lower lobe of your right lung. That means you have pneumonia."

Holy crap. But then he told me something worse. "You are not leaving town, my friend. Do NOT get on that plane."

Well, to make a short story even longer, I called my mom and broke the bad news: we wouldn't be with her on her 80th birthday. I don't know who was more disappointed -- her or me. I felt like crying.

Anyway, it's Friday morning and the doc called back after looking at the X-ray for himself. "Don't exert yourself. Stay around the house. Take it easy. I'd like to see you in about ten days for a follow-up."

Back in the day, I guess they used to call this "walking pneumonia." I know this because my mother actually had it herself.

So...guys: if you feel bad -- see the doc, OK? God only knows how long I've had this and how much worse it might have gotten without proper care.

P.S. Later, Miss Julie apologized. "For what?" says I.

"Here I thought you were being a titty-baby," says my beautiful bride, "slouching around, whimpering about your back. But knowing you had pneumonia and knowing all the stuff we did over the holiday break -- riding bikes, going to the park, playing with the boys -- it makes me realize you're as strong as an ox."

Heh.

From Fox News:

CHRIS WALLACE: Senator Specter wants to hold hearings before the Judiciary Committee (on Bush's alleged illegal wiretapping). There's a report today the White House does not want that and would like to have them held in secret before the Intelligence Committee. Are you going to do anything to try to block Senator Specter's holding hearings by the Judiciary Committee?

SENATOR MCCONNELL: Well, look. Before getting to that, let's talk about the facts. The facts are that the president believes very, very strongly that he has the constitutional authority and that the resolution we passed in 2001 in the war on terror gives him the authority to do what he did.

One more time, kids: A state of war doesn't give Bush a blank check.

UPDATE: I have inserted the word "alleged" in front of the words "illegal wiretapping." Thanks, Rose.

I've seen this presentation -- it's pretty good. You should watch it. I think it may be showing tonight on your local PBS station. Check your local listings...

... or just watch the full program online (WMP and Real Player).

Laura Leyva is running as a Democrat for a seat in the Florida state legislature. I think she is bright, energetic and has a good chance of winning. I've written more about her here.

Below is a short interview I conducted with Laura over the weekend.

Tell me about the people of district 107. Who are they? What are their hopes? What keeps them awake at night, what worries them?

District 107 is a very diverse area. It's largely Hispanic - about 54% and more than 60% speak Spanish. It also has some of the wealthiest areas and poorest areas in Florida. So economic issues such as health care, education, wages are very important.

If elected, what would you do to help them with their worries and hopes?

As a health care professional, my top issue is health care. I am committed to improving the access and quality of primary care in our community while working with providers to contain costs. I know we won't be able to help everyone with every problem, but I know we can do better.

You ran once before in a different district and lost. What was your biggest mistake then and how do you plan to avoid it this time?

Last election I ran for the State House in a district that, honestly, can't be won by a Democrat. I also ran against the incoming speaker of the House - a popular and powerful Hispanic. But I ran in that seat because that's where I lived and I wanted to serve. Even so, the experience in 2004 has helped me be a better candidate this time. I know who to call, what to say and where to go. And it's working. And having moved across town, the district I live in now is an open and highly competitive seat. As the only Democrat running, I know we will do well in 2006 and have a real opportunity to win this seat.

(Click on the image, left, to see a bigger version of the ad.)

It's been a couple of weeks since the illegal wiretapping story broke. The story has cooled down somewhat during the holidays.

In that time, there's been a lot of macho-talk from Bush about how "we have to know what the terrorists are thinking."

Duh.

Obviously that isn't what has Democrats (Russ Feingold), Republicans (Bob Barr, George Will, Chuck Hagel, Richard Lugar, Arlen Specter), and Independents (the Cato Institute) pissed off.

It's about whether or not the President is above the law.

And don't forget -- the NSA illegal wiretaps are just one of many cases of this kind.

The first such case is already headed to the SCOTUS:

Bush's signing statement renders McCain's anti-torture amendment a moot point.

Wanna bet McCain goes quietly?

From Cory Doctorow at Boing Boing:

Awesome sf author/satirist Paul Di Filippo has published a short story in the Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction in his "Plumage from Pegasus" column in which the collapse of the Internet ("chaos of viruses, worms, spam, terrorism and busts by the FBI anti-porn squad") turns bloggers (including me) into crazed San Francisco street-people who shove bits of paper into the faces of passers-by, hoping to interest them with novel tidbits...

We concluded it came from my having been born third in a family of four children.

P.S. In the movie Parenthood, Mary Steenbergen comments on how parents get more lax with each new child until "By the third kid, you know, you let them juggle knives." Heh.

You've heard me say it before: I think it is a bad idea for the interests of government and the interests of business to coincide.

Why?

Because in the world of business, one share equals one vote. But in the world of governance, one person equals one vote.

What this means is that for our system of governance to work best, the natural power of money cannot be allowed to outweigh the natural power of the people.

Easier said that done, right?

Fifty years ago, a politician in California said "Money is the mother's milk of politics." It was true then and, despite the efforts at campaign finance reform, it's true now.

Republicans have a natural advantage: their fundraising activities are organized around their corporate contacts. By calling on the heads of large corporations (remember Enron and Ken Lay?) they can gather in hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign cash.

Democrats are at more of a disadvantage -- our business contacts are not nearly as deep or as wide-ranging. But the Internet, especially blogs, have given us a way to catch up. In the last election cycle, Democrats used the Internet to draw nearly even with the Republican money-machine.

Now we're looking at the 2006 election cycle and that is where you can help.

I'm writing to tell you about a Democrat running for a seat in the Florida Legislature: Laura Leyva:

• Laura is a South Florida native of Hispanic decent.

• Laura is an MD and is very active in Miami's medical and social services communities.

• She is the director and founder of Family AIDS Coalition, a non-profit organization focusing on the needs of families and individuals affected by HIV/AIDS.

• Her commitment to serve her community on this important issue has made Laura a frequent contributor to local and national media programs.

• She also serves on the Board of the Unity Coalition of Miami-Dade County.

• Beyond health care, Laura is committed to serving as a passionate advocate for small businesses, neighborhoods and senior citizens.

• And Laura is also serious about meeting the high standards of the Democratic Party in delivering accessible and affordable health care, protecting the rights of everyone and investing in education.

• Laura is running in Florida's state legislature District 107 -- Key Biscayne, the Brickell area and parts of Miami Beach and Little Havana.

• The district is more than 60% Hispanic. Laura’s Cuban-American roots will help her represent the district well.

• Laura is the only Democrat running in a district that is 61% non-Republican.

• If elected, Laura would be only the second Hispanic woman in the Florida Legislature.

My consultant thinks that asking for help on blogs is a waste of time and money.

So we have a friendly wager going. I bet him that blog readers would help our campaign raise $2,500 in the next two weeks.

He bet it couldn't be done.

If I win, and we raise $2,500 or more, he'll pay for the ads himself! If he wins, we stop advertising on blogs.

So I need your help.

Click on my photo on the upper right of Ara's blog and make a small contribution.

You can make my consultant eat his words and open his checkbook!

Making a contribution will not only open my consultant's eyes, your donation will be put to use winning a swing seat in the nation's largest swing state!

More important than that, you can help even the score in this country between the power of money and the power of the people. And wouldn't that be a welcome relief to know you've had some small part in turning a red state into a blue state?

But don't wait -- her wager with her consultant ends in less than two weeks. Do it right now, before you open your next email, or scribble a reminder on a post-it note, or before the next phone call comes in or before you have to run that next errand.

Here's what to do to help Laura right now:

1. Click on her photo (upper right).

2. Scroll down to the bottom. You can make a donation with your credit card...

3. ... or with a check.

Thanks.

P.S. If you contribute $100 or more and include your phone number, Laura will call you personally to say thank you.