May 2006 Archives

Jeff Jacoby:

Unless something changes dramatically -- and soon -- the GOP is poised to lose its most reliable voters, and with them any hope of keeping its congressional majority.

And this is from a guy who considers himself part of the Republican base.

A must-read:

"If you look at the polling data, it's clear that people lack a sense of what the Democrats stand for," said Ruy Teixeira, a public opinion analyst at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank.

[...]

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) recently identified five initiatives she said the party would pass within the first week if it won control of the House.

Those initiatives are:

• raising the minimum wage,
• rescinding tax breaks for oil companies included in the 2005 energy legislation,
• revising the Medicare prescription drug bill to allow the government to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies for lower prices,
• cutting student loan rates and passing the remaining recommendations for improving national security by the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

Perhaps just as important, Pelosi told Democratic House members at a closed meeting this month that the party would not pursue impeachment proceedings against Bush.

I'd say things are so fluid right now that you can't predict at all what's going to happen. There are so many pieces in play that everyone is keeping all their options open for as long as they can. It's just human nature. And, for good or bad, it's smart politics too.

You just have to have nerves of steel, the hide of a buffalo and more ability than a chameleon to blend in with your surroundings.

I love this game!

I guess it breaks down like this: you either support the White House's arrogant and precedent-shattering raid on Rep. Jefferson's offices or you support the rubber-stamp Republican majority's hollow and ironic outrage over it.

What's a Democrat to do?

So far, I've heard reliably lefty Democrats choosing the former as opposed to the latter. The thinking seems to be that a corrupt Congress should not be above the law (and, what the hell, the FBI did get a warrant). That's all well and good.

But many of the same observers are outraged over the unprecedented encroachment by the Executive on the separation of powers as represented by the NSA's warrantless wiretapping & data-mining operations, the entire Patriot Act, Gitmo detainees, enemy combatants, the torture memorandum, the abuse of signing statements, and on and on and on.

On top of all that, many reasonable people (with legal and historical minds greater than my own) have opined that the FBI raid really does represent a serious constitutional breach.

In short, it is debatable.

That said, let's look at the politics of it and try to figure out the winners and losers.

Winners:

1. Democrats
   Fact is, the outrage over the constitutional issues has deprived the Republicans the one thing Karl Rove wanted out of this whole thing: shifting the focus from the Republican culture of corruption to the Democrats.

2. The Unknown Leaker(s) in the Department of Justice
   Who are these guys, anyway and what do they want? He (or they) dropped a dime on Denny Hastert and he also pulled Bush strings by leaking news that Gonzalez was ready to quit over this affair.

3. Congressional Black Caucus
   They get to argue both sides of the issue. Here's John Conyers: "We've never been told why the search had to be done in the middle of the night." Good point.

Losers:

1. Bush
   He can't afford to piss of the House if he wants to get an immigration bill out of committee. Also, can it be possible that Bush had no knowledge of the raid before it went down? Sadly, yes.

2. Republicans
   As with immigration, this issue has split them right down the middle at a crucial time in the election cycle. No matter what they say or do, they look confused and ridiculous. Hastert is a case in point. After screaming bloody murder, he backed off with this absurd statement:

   In talking points distributed to GOP House members last week, Hastert and other House leaders conceded the perils of their position. "Is this a smart battle for Congress to fight?" the talking points asked. "Perhaps not. Defending Constitutional principles—particularly those related to institutional balances of power—is often not politically expedient and often results in bad publicity."

   Right now, Hastert's reputation with his base is even lower than Pelosi's with hers, and that's saying a lot.

3. Nancy Pelosi
   In a recent Daily Kos straw poll, taken before her joint-news-conference-communal-howl-of-pain with Denny Hastert, the Minority Leader's approval rating with the netroots was a pathetic 30 percent; this will simply drive it lower.

As I've said before, there is a way for Democrats to handle this without seeming to be just as hypocritical as the rubber stamp Republicans.

I just wish someone would run with it.

...or are they?

Quick, check the weather report -- did Hell just freeze over?

Congress's right to legislate without being intimidated by the executive is a core element of the Constitution, and bullying prosecutors shouldn't be allowed to violate it.

Wow. For the first time in 200 years, the Executive branch launched a raid on Congress. And, in a similar earth-shattering development, the Wall Street Journal agreed with Nancy Pelosi.

Adam Nagourney files this account of an interview he did with Al Gore:

"But in a feisty and frequently argumentative telephone conversation, Mr. Gore brimmed with disdain at the state of American politics and political journalism, urging his interviewer to quit a career covering politics to turn to matters of real consequence. 'Stop covering politics; cover the climate crisis. It is not too late!' he said, with a boom of laughter." Why? "Politics, he said, has become a game of meaningless, mindless battles, conducted by unscrupulous methods and people, designed to transform even the most serious policy debates into sport."

Gosh. He makes that sound like a bad thing.

King Kaufman:

The Pistons have a lot of problems, not the least of which is having to win three straight games, one of them on the road. It always looks like the team that's just lost has a lot of problems, and the good ones adjust and come right back. A decisive win in Game 5 by the Pistons wouldn't surprise me in the least.

But their best hope is for Shaquille O'Neal to start acting his age and weight again. Soon.

P.S. If you read Kaufman's post all the way down to the end, you get this gem:

You know a nice little side benefit of watching women's sports? Sitting in front of the TV for a while without hearing about erectile dysfunction.

Indeed.

Interesting polling analysis on the politics of immigration reform:

A USA TODAY breakdown of public opinion, based on Gallup polls taken in April and May, finds Americans falling into four clusters that are roughly equal in size but vary dramatically in point of view. The groups can be characterized as "hard-liners," "unconcerned," "ambivalent" and "welcoming."

Historian and former nun Karen Armstrong says the afterlife is a "red herring," hating religion is a pathology and that many Westerners cling to infantile ideas of God.

Click the image to get a larger view.

(HT to Wayne Niemi)

Barney Frank, in a speech to the House, makes a principled stand on the issue of separation of powers. In the process, he also frames the issue in a way no high-profile Democrat has done:

Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Madam Speaker, I disagree with the bipartisan House leadership criticism of the FBI's search of a Member's office. I know nothing specifically about the case, except that the uncontroverted public evidence did seem to justify the issuance of a warrant.

What we now have is a Congressional leadership, the Republican part of which has said it is okay for law enforcement to engage in warrantless searches of the average citizen, now objecting when a search, pursuant to a validly issued warrant, is conducted of a Member of Congress.

I understand that the speech and debate clause is in the Constitution. It is there because Queen Elizabeth I and King James I were disrespectful of Parliament. It ought to be, in my judgment, construed narrowly. It should not be in any way interpreted as meaning that we as Members of Congress have legal protections superior to those of the average citizen.

So I think it was a grave error to have criticized the FBI. I think what they did, they ought to be able to do in every case where they can get a warrant from a judge. I think, in particular, for the leadership of this House, which has stood idly by while this administration has ignored the rights of citizens, to then say we have special rights as Members of Congress is wholly inappropriate.

I question why Rep. Jefferson is the one Congressman upon whom the FBI (in its entire history) has paid a personal visit. Can it be that a corrupt Louisiana politician is so rare a species that we have endured the entire 200 years of our Constitutional history never having seen one...until this week? What is it about Jefferson that is so remarkable?

(HT to Armando)

By now you've probably heard about this:

A CBS News cameraman and soundman were killed Monday and a correspondent was injured when the military unit they were following was attacked in Baghdad, the network said on its Web site.

Cameraman Paul Douglas, 48, and sound technician James Brolan, 42, were killed and correspondent Kimberly Dozier, 39, was seriously injured when a convoy of the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, was hit by a roadside bomb, CBS said in a statement. The attack also killed a US army officer and an Iraqi interpreter.

I've never heard of Dozier, but then again I don't watch CBS News. On the off-chance that I might recognize her face, I went looking for a picture of her.

I found it on the USA Today web site:

"It is getting worse day by day," says Rod Nordland, Newsweek's Baghdad bureau chief. "We can't work on the street anymore, and in terms of just wandering, that's not doable."

That sounds familiar, but hold on -- this article is dated April 2004.

[N]ow, he says, the resistance to the American occupation "is so widespread that it shows there either is a wellspring of discontent or an awful lot of Iraqis have changed their view. It's astonishing."

Yeah. We get that a lot.

"Running an errand — you don't do that kind of thing anymore," says CBS' Kimberly Dozier from Baghdad. She doesn't spend any more than 15 minutes in any one spot. En route to report a feature about driving schools, she was riding in a GMC truck — the same kind of trucks used by the U.S.-led coalition — and got stuck in traffic.

"The looks that we got from all the Iraqis trapped in the traffic with us; none of us had felt it that way before. I feel so much more foreign than I used to and much more vulnerable because of it."

Kimberly Dozier is in critical condition. Her doctors are "cautiously optimistic" about her chances for recovery.

"What a cruel thing is war: to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbors, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world."

--- General Robert E. Lee

From the Uber-Ragemeister himself:

Imagine, if you will, that evidence surfaces that the President of the United States, or the Secretary of State, or even some minor member of the White House staff, was committing crimes. Imagine if the Congress declared that they wanted to investigate those allegations, and the White House responded by saying that it would be a violation of the "separation of powers" for the Congress to investigate anything that happens in the White House.

Dude! Check it out -- it's happening almost every day now!

Hastert blows his stack over the FBI raid on Congressman Jefferson's offices. But the White House has offered him some cover by sealing the docs for 45 days.

Looks like it came just in time, as Hastert is having second thoughts:

In talking points distributed to GOP House members last week, Hastert and other House leaders conceded the perils of their position. "Is this a smart battle for Congress to fight?" the talking points asked. "Perhaps not. Defending Constitutional principles -- particularly those related to institutional balances of power -- is often not politically expedient and often results in bad publicity."

Not only should these guys be thrown out of office in November, they should be put in stocks on the National Mall and pelted with rotten fruit on a daily basis until they agree never to show their faces in public ever again.

by Mark Adams

Hard to believe, but . . .

The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive.

Answer under the fold

New materials that can change the way light and other forms of radiation bend around an object may provide a way to make objects invisible, researchers say.

Two separate teams of researchers have come up with theories on ways to use experimental "metamaterials" to cloak an object and hide it from visible light, infrared light, microwaves and perhaps even sonar probes.

Their work suggests that science-fiction portrayals of invisibility, such as the cloaking devices used to hide space ships in Star Trek, might be truly possible.

Harry Potter's cloak or the Invisible Man of films and fiction might be a bit harder to emulate, however, because the materials must be used in a thick shell.

The concept begins with refraction--a quality of light in which the electromagnetic waves take the quickest, but not necessarily the shortest, route. This accounts for the illusion that a pencil immersed in a glass of water appears broken, for instance.

"Imagine a situation where a medium guides light around a hole in it," Physicist Ulf Leonhardt of Britain's University of St. Andrews, wrote in one of the reports, published in Friday's issue of the journal Science.

The light rays end up behind the object as if they had traveled in a straight line.

"Any object placed in the hole would be hidden from sight. The medium would create the ultimate optical illusion: invisibility, Leonhardt wrote.

"Such devices may be possible. The method developed here can be also applied to escape detection by other electromagnetic waves or sound."

King Kaufman:

The Heat are good enough to stay with the Pistons and make it a long series, but they've got some serious issues....Shaq looked pretty strong Thursday, but give him time. The Big Diesel's got at least six and possibly eight more days of "play a day, rest a day" coming. He'll be leaking oil, or whatever it is big diesels leak, by the middle of next week.

Ouch.

See, I have mixed feelings about this on so many levels.

• Historical: I can't believe that the Executive branch stepped on 200 years of tradition (if not the law) to investigate a corrupt Congressman -- from Louisiana! What the hell is THAT all about?

• Political: It's pretty shameful that THIS is the event that suddenly wakes up Hastert and the Republicans. Can you say "rubber stamp Republicans?" If not, the Democrats certainly will..or will they?

• Democratic Party loyalty: There is a way to handle this and it does not involve "acting like a Republican." Yes, I'm talking to you Nancy Pelosi. It involves:
  1. (Re-)swearing your allegiance to the US Constitution and tying this back to the NSA, the Patriot Act, Gitmo, torture, signing statements, and on and on and on.
     
  2. It means (at least) paying lip service to the the fact that Jefferson is innocent until proven guilty -- and simultaneously making a retroactive rule saying if you are under investigation, you must relinquish all power except that given to you via the ballot box.
     
  3. And/but it means that the Congressional Black Caucus needs to get right with Jesus and stop fighting the leadership on this.

That's all I can think of right now.

by Mark Adams

Conservatives are cowards.

Too afraid of change and too busy wetting their pants to make decisions for themselves and taking responsibility for their actions.

by Mark Adams

The conventional wisdom surrounding Dennis Hastert's discovery that Congress is a co-equal branch of government was due in large part because he too might find the FBI knocking at his door for being "In the mix" of the Abramoff scandals.

Emptywheel thinks it's no coincidence that ABC broke the story, since they were the ones warned their calls were being monitored by the government to find the "Deep Throat" tipping them off to the inside stuff in scandaldom.

Not really a stretch of the imagination to think a powerful Chicago politician like Hastert, who was one of the largest recipients of the nation's most notorious professional bagman's largess (HT: pam), could be a tad bit suspect in his recent financial dealings.  Corruption has gotten out of control in Washington, and the FBI is ramping up to deal with it.

The Constitution is clear that the Speech and Debate Clause by it's plain language exempts congressmen from arrest while pursuing their official duties, but makes exception for those immunities in cases of treason, felony and breaches of the peace.  It did not offer any protection to Representative William Jefferson from the FBI executing a duly authorized warrant to search his office.  Indeed, one can assume that since it doesn't protect a member from arrest, a search warrant is fair game.  So just who does Speaker Hastert think he's blowing all that smoke at?

Two thoughts occur after surfing past this post at the Sideshow.

There was a better way to proceed.  The FBI could have brought in the Capital Police to execute the warrant with appropriate safeguards that the executive branch agents weren't just rifling through the confidential papers of a co-equal branch.  That is the essence of the warrantless NSA snooping objections. There's nobody watching the watchers.

Also, by using such heavy handed methods against the one Democrat on the Hill that got caught red handed taking bribes, they put all the GOPers wondering just what convicted felons Jack Abramoff, Brent Wilkes and Duke Cunningham have been telling prosecutors on notice about what may be coming their way.  Next time, things will go differently because I'm sure the President doesn't want to write to many more of these.

I'm not tying to imply that the GOP leadership puts party loyalty before truth or before the interests of the American people, or before justice.  I'm coming right out and saying so in plain English, this is how crooks behave.

ADDENDUM: 

Pelosi is taking serious heat from the Congressional Black Caucus for her principled stand.  The problem is, getting the guy on tape an all, the CBC is on the wrong side of this fight.

You can excuse me for thinking I'm in some Bizarro version of the United States: Pelosi demands that William Jefferson resign Ways & Means and Hastert claims a violation of the constitutional separation of powers? What the hell is going on?

A couple of thoughts:

1. We in Louisiana have known forever that Jefferson was a crook. But like they say, if you think HE was bad, you ought to see his constituents. I'm just saying.

2. Like that goofball in the movie Airplane, Hastert "picked a hell of a time to stop sniffing glue." After being a rubber stamp Congress for Bush for nearly 6 years, after rolling over for the president time and time and time again, after turning a blind eye as Bush gave Congress the finger, NOW Hastert wakes up? Feh. Well, I guess better late than never, eh?

UPDATE: Holy crap: Hastert being investigated by the FBI to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress.

UPDATE II: Oh, no! He's not!
UPDATE III: Oh yes! He is!
UPDATE IV: Michael Tomasky asks a great question:

Is it just me? Or does anyone else suspect that maybe half the reason Hastert et al. are so in heat over the Jefferson raid has nothing to do separation of powers and something to do with the fact that if they defend Jefferson and help him stay in the House, the corruption issue doesn't cut so cleanly for Democrats?

King Kaufman says it may look like the Pistons have no answers for the Heat after the Game 1 loss. But don't be fooled.

Bill Frogameni writes about the Pulitzer-winning reporters who exposed the U.S. Tiger Force's atrocities in Vietnam. They discuss why the case was whitewashed -- and its scary parallels to Iraq, including Rumsfeld's possible involvement in ending the investigation in 1975.

Michael Novak makes the case that Dear Leader is, well...let him tell it:

...after Washington and Lincoln, Bush is the bravest of our presidents.

But wait...

Glenn Greenwald:

Increasingly, there is simply no role for courts to review the President's actions, nor for citizens to challenge the legality and constitutionality of those actions...[For example] Henry Lanman details in Slate today:

Never heard of the "state secrets" privilege? You're not alone. But the Bush administration sure has. Before Sept. 11, this obscure privilege was invoked only rarely. Since then, the administration has dramatically increased its use. According to the Washington Post, the Reporters' Committee for Freedom of the Press reported that while the government asserted the privilege approximately 55 times in total between 1954 (the privilege was first recognized in 1953) and 2001, it's asserted it 23 times in the four years after Sept. 11. For an administration as obsessed with secrecy as this one is, the privilege is simply proving to be too powerful a tool to pass up.

The Bush administration has now invoked this doctrine in virtually every pending legal proceeding devoted to challenging the legality of the warrantless NSA eavesdropping program - all but assuring, yet again, that no court can rule on the legality of that program.

George W. Bush started a war that apparently will have permanent duration. And by invoking "war powers" during that war, George W. Bush has accumulated something the founders worked hard to prevent: maximum power in the hands of one individual.

The only way to stop him is for the other two branches to assert their constitutional checks and balances against the Executive branch.

And it would help if the traditional media would investigate and report honestly and freely about what is happening in our government.

Karl Rove's strategy has always been to spot a weakness in his own candidate and then accuse his opponent of that same weakness -- first. Once he's "exposed" that weakness, he hammers the opponent relentlessly.

This time around, we know that Rove himself has been suspected of (if not indicted for) lying about his role in outing Valerie Plame. So...

...look for Rove to accuse his opponent(s) of endangering national security by leaking classified information about warrantless wiretaps and CIA prisons in Europe.

Mark my words -- the formula is simple and it goes like this: leakers are bad. Democrats love leakers. Therefore, Democrats are bad.

Never mind that the "enemy leakers" were reporting on government misconduct and illegal behavior -- that's nuance and this White House, baby, doesn't do nuance.

Hope the Dems are ready.

It's been a while since I've read Bob Somerby. I'd forgotten how good he can be on the topic of clueless, millionaire pundits.

Take a few minutes and read his latest entry. It's a classic.

Item:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security.

Glenn Greenwald:

If the President has the power to keep secret any information he wants simply by classifying it -- including information regarding illegal or otherwise improper actions he has taken -- then the President, by definition, has complete control over the flow of information which Americans receive about their Government.

Thomas Jefferson:

"If I had to choose between government without newspapers, and newspapers without government, I wouldn't hesitate to choose the latter."

Greenwald again:

Virtually every issue of political controversy during the Bush administration has been the result of the disclosure to a journalist by a concerned Government source that the administration is engaging in illegal, improper and/or highly controversial conduct.

A couple of highlights:

• The final tally was 52%-48%.

• Nagin and Landrieu split the absentee vote equally.

• "Both candidates received about 20 to 21 percent crossover vote, but the magnitude of the African-American base propelled the mayor to a victory," said Greg Rigamer, a political consultant who conducted his own analysis of Saturday's balloting.

• Here's a Flash animation of Katrina's progress, concluding with a map of the neighborhoods that sustained the worst flooding; here's a precinct-by-precinct breakdown of how the candidates did on election day. Conclusion? Each candidate won precincts that flooded badly and each one won precincts that were relatively dry.

Nagin will be sworn in on May 31; hurricane season starts the next day.

...and send him to bed without dessert.

Next up: The Miami Heat.

by Mark Adams

Rep. William Jefferson, D-La., should already have been charged.  What's the hold up? 

$90 Grand in his freezer?  Caught on tape accepting a Sack Full of Money in an international bribery sting?

And now we found out they've been sitting on the evidence since last August?

This smells.

Latest video mashup -- The Ten Commandments as a teen sex comedy:

by Mark Adams

Matthew Yglesias has taken over Josh Marshall's Talking Points Memo.  No, not the kind of phony palace coup you see over at the new and improved Dave's World.  Josh is taking a week off for a vacation from the grind -- a sure sign that Rove will indeed be indicted, giving Josh no reason to live once he gets back.

Also, unlike the former host of Dave's World, Matt understands the proper and popular vernacular for the words "liberal" and "democracy," quite able to use both in a sentence without subterfuge nor ambiguity.

The subject was one I posted on earlier:  Senator Pat Robert's (R-Kansas) cowardly, provincially small-minded, and unenlightened statement at General Hayden's confirmation hearings.

"I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties, but you have no civil liberties if you are dead."

Matt is charitable in characterizing this as merely "horribly misguided."  It's almost unfair that someone so young as Yglesias is such a talented writer.

Not only does he make the cowardice charge with alacrity, and dismisses the wingnuts' "9/11 changed everything" chickenhawk meme adroitly and without mercy, he explains the superiority of liberal democracy as a political philosophy that embraces the rule of law  and civil liberties over more authoritarian regimes typified by secrecy and abuse of surveillance powers, ultimately used against political opponents by corrupt overlords.

The U.S.S.R., after all, lost the Cold War, not because we beat them in a race to the bottom to improve national security by gutting the principles of our system, but because the principles underlying our system were actually better than the alternative. If you don't have some faith the American way of life is capable of coping with actual challenges, then what's the point in defending it? [emphasis-Mark]

Anyone reading that last sentence who tries to turn it around to imply that Matt is doing anything but patriotically defending liberty and the American Way, but is somehow supporting terrorism, is not stupid.   However, they certainly know some stupid people they think they could tell that to and sway them that liberals are the real enemy, or at least the closest at hand.  It's an old trick, but often effective.

Andrew Sullivan, a bit grayer in the beard than Matt, and despite the sexual preference he wears on his sleeve is certainly more conservative, quotes an observation by John Stuart Mill which quite possibly explains why this debate still continues, despite the utterly bankrupt arguments clung to by the likes of Pat Roberts and conservative Blogistan.

"I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it,"

The dumb ones keep breeding more of their kind.  They must either learn the lessons of a thousand years of western political experience, or be opposed at every turn lest they destroy the upward evolution of society.  Conservatives reject the fundamental tenant of Mill's message: [T]he proper objective of all conduct and legislation is "the greatest happiness of the greatest number"

Conason:

What the NSA has done for the past five years may well violate not only the Fourth Amendment but a host of lesser laws, too.

Moreover, the Bush administration's claim that the president has the inherent right to ignore the Bill of Rights and flout the law demands an aggressive response from Congress. The Senate and House should undertake a full investigation of those programs at a future date -- when one or both houses of Congress are under different leadership.

Yet while the president certainly deserves to be investigated (or worse) for his regime's apparent misconduct, the Hayden nomination is not the most appropriate forum for that reckoning.

The nomination process is meant to determine whether the general is qualified to serve as CIA director, whether he has been truthful in his previous testimony before the Senate and how he intends to rebuild the agency.

[...]

Unlike so many of the hacks placed in charge of important government agencies during the past six years, Hayden possesses powerful qualifications for the job. He is also wise enough to treat the Senate with respect. He isn't trying to push his way through with bluster and bullying.

By the admittedly dismal standards of the Bush administration, then, Hayden is an unusually good appointment. To reject him will only encourage Bush to send up more awful nominees -- and that would be counterproductive, since, despite his pathetically low approval ratings, Bush is almost certain to remain president for nearly three more years.

Besides, Hayden is smart enough to understand the political environment in which he must operate now. He knows that Congress is likely to demand both better results and more transparency from the nation's intelligence agencies than they did in the first few years after 9/11. Although it would be nice if we could depend on the CIA director to safeguard our civil liberties, that certainly wouldn't be prudent. That trust is vested in the president, Congress and the courts -- and when they betray their oath to uphold the Constitution, it is they who should be held accountable.

10. Post office wall has several photos of you sleeping

9. Your houseplant occasionally sneezes

8. Domino's keeps delivering to unmarked van parked across the street

7. Birthday card from your mom has several words blacked out

6. You get nominated for "Outstanding Lead Performance in an NSA Surveillance Video"

5. Your dishwasher functions are "Wash," "Rinse" and "Record"

4. Local news only reporting things that happen in your living room

3. Every time you say goodbye on the phone, you hear a strange voice say, "Roger that, Chico"

2. You googled a recipe for hummus and the FBI raided your house

1. [You] suddenly discover there's an antenna bolted to your ass

---Late Show with David Letterman

(HT to Bill in Portland Maine)

Frum:

[Bush's] plan won't work, and it is not seriously meant to work. It's supposed to look dramatic and buy the president some respite from negative polls - and then it is supposed to fail, strengthening the administration's case for its truly preferred approach: amnesty + guestworkers.

I'd agree except I'd take it even further: this plan fits the profile of most of Bush's presidency -- do such a bad job of governing so as to prove that government itself is bad.

by Mark Adams

But with which Pat?

"Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
--Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

"You have no civil liberties if you are dead."
--Sen. Pat Roberts, May 18, 2006.

Which are you, the Patriot or the Pattsy?  A Path-finder or Pathetic?

Hat Tip: Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Watch the trailer. It's very moving and better than I thought (or hoped) it would be.

UPDATE: Here's a blurb from IMDB.com:

In the aftermath of the World Trade Center disaster, hope is still alive. Refusing to bow down to terrorism, rescuers and family of the victims press forward. Their mission of rescue and recovery is driven by the faith that under each piece of rubble, a co-worker, a friend a family member may be found. This is the true story of John McLoughlin and William J. Jimeno, the last two survivors extracted from Ground Zero and the rescuers who never gave up. It's a story of the true heroes of that fateful time in the history of the United States when buildings would fall and heroes would rise, literally from the ashes to inspire the entire human race.

Say what you will about Oliver Stone's politics, but (with very few exceptions) his movies are always worth watching. His movie Nixon succeeded in doing something I thought impossible -- it softened my heart and made me feel compassion for the poor bastard (Nixon, that is). His best movies -- Platoon, Wall Street, Any Given Sunday, and yes, JFK -- have an emotional and physical heft that make them irresistable. And they're great to look at too.

I'm looking forward to World Trade Center.

Look for Bush to bounce back up in the polls right about now.

• The immigration thing will cut in his favor -- the most motivated voters are the ones who want stuff like that fence.

• Remembering that it's 70% how you look, 20% how you sound and 10% what you say, he'll look good flying down to Arizona wearing jeans and a work shirt.

• Signing a tax cut (any tax cut) is always good news for Republicans.

• Iraq has disappeared from the news, having been replaced by the Duke rape scandal and the latest results from American Idol.

• Gen. Hayden will be approved as DCI and the NSA scandal (already receding) will quiet down a result.

• Lastly, you didn't really believe Bush's numbers could go any lower now, did you? UPDATE: Well, maybe they could...

John Conyers:

The administration's stonewalling, and the lack of oversight by Congress, have left us to guess whether we are dealing with isolated wrongdoing, or mistakes, or something worse. In my view, the American people deserve answers, not guesses. I have proposed that we obtain these answers in a responsible and bipartisan manner.

[...]

So, rather than seeking impeachment, I have chosen to propose comprehensive oversight of these alleged abuses. The oversight I have suggested would be performed by a select committee made up equally of Democrats and Republicans and chosen by the House speaker and the minority leader.

Read the Executive Summary.

Excerpt:

Energize America is a grassroots effort created and refined by informed citizen activists, and not by lobbyists or politicians. As such, it takes an unvarnished and objective look at U.S. energy policy with the single goal of achieving U.S. energy security by 2020, defined as the ability to withstand a prolonged supply interruption, and U.S. energy independence by 2040, defined as energy self-sufficiency.

When the government wiretapped the terrorists,
That was fine;
I was not a terrorist.

When they wiretapped the leakers,
I did not speak out;
I was not a leaker.

When they wiretapped the reporters,
I did not speak out
I was not a reporter.

When they wiretapped me,
There was no one left to speak out.

(HT to Cunning Realist)

by Mark Adams

Cavs go ahead in series, 3-2

Lebron James, 21 year old phenom.

by Mark Adams

Friedman:

What has eaten away most at the support for this administration, I believe, has been the fact that time and time again, it has put politics and ideology ahead of the interests of the United States, and I think a lot of people are just sick of it. I know I sure am.

Ya don't say?

History will make the final judgment on Jorge "W." Arbusto's performance as our president, and it won't matter because we'll all be dead.  That begs the question, of course, what exactly does matter?

Naturally, what matters is what we decide now, and the history writers will take their cue from us.  I'm usually not impressed with "Flat-Earther" Friedman, but this time he articulates plainly that the verdict is in on the Bush Administration.

Trying to take the pulse of the nation, Friedman doesn't have to go as far as his colleague Frank Rich, who (quite accurately, yet not as politely) judges the the sycophants who lied us into war and are now trying to cover their tracks to be traitors.

Friedman simply states:  We're done with this guy.  Sick of the crap.  Next...!

We, the People of the United States, after methodically waiting to pronounce final judgment, bearing with the steep learning curve such an inexperienced "regular guy" would naturally face entering the Oval Office, supporting the leadership in time of crisis and war, and giving the man himself if not his entire administration the benefit of the doubt, have made our decision.

George Bush will never regain the trust and confidence of the American public. His popularity may continue it's inexorable slide to the record depths of Nixonian irrelevancy, or may hover between a quarter to a third of the remaining sympathizers who can't bring themselves to kick the man while he's down -- yet when pressed will make a point to express their independence from the radical rightist agenda he and his cabal have hoisted upon the world.  However, he will never, ever regain anything close to popular support for anything he attempts.

The curtain has been drawn back, the audience knows the secrets to the magician's tricks. In this life, and the next, we know our President is a utter failure.

by Mark Adams

So, I go out of town for a couple of days, fully expecting the blogosphere to be swimming in ponies . . .

But NOooooo....

Truthout's Jason Leopold's "scoop" that Karl Rove's indictment had already been filed, after several long days, has not been confirmed.

Indeed, despite what I heard on the drive home when he appeared on the Ed Schultz Radio Program (link to Booman's discussion), his earnestness notwithstanding -- the "scoop" has only served to discredit the argument that bloggers, without independent editors and the connections and staff to cross-verify sources, are every bit as good as the traditional press.

My opinion of the superiority of news and political analysis by bloggers has not changed, however.  My opinion is that bloggers' opinions are the best and most informed opinions in opiniondom.  So take that Wall Street Journal.

We all know it's just a matter of time.  At this point with even the GOP's conservative religious base in all-out revolt, (making me believe that the only people telling pollsters they still support POTUS feel bad for the guy and are lying on the survey) Rove's frog-march is only Schadenfreude.

And it's not just immigration the usually lockstep right is splintering over.  Some of them have had it with Big Brother too.

The GOP brand has Edsel written all over it, (or should that read "Nixonian?") but in the meantime. . . .

The race for mayor of New Orleans is nearing its conclusion. Last night the two candidates (incumbent Ray Nagin vs. challenger Mitch Landrieu) faced each other in their final debate.

You should care about this because we're all residents of Louisiana now. Make no mistake: the race for mayor of New Orleans will have national repercussions:

• What happens to the price of gas and oil if the port of New Orleans is permanently diminished?
  
• How much support should the Federal government be expected to give to the rebuilding of a city -- below sea level?
  
• What effect will immigration reform have on New Orleans? More specifically, can you really rebuild New Orleans without relying on illegal immigrant labor, i.e., those who get paid below the minimum wage?
  
• Can the national Republican party be expected to support the revival of a state that elects Democrats?
  
• Will race divide Democrats from each other?
  
• Which campaign strategy is the winning one -- values or competence?

These are just some of the reasons why you should keep an eye on New Orleans now -- and after the election.

Here's MSNBC's coverage (including video) of the Nagin-Landrieu debate.

And here's another (more intriguing) interview of Landrieu and Nagin. The highlight:

Question: There's another flood. You are in a rescue boat. You arrive at a rooftop to find Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie. There's only room for one in the boat. Who do you take?

Landrieu: They both get left.

Nagin: I give them the boat and get on the roof and wait for the helicopter.

Heh.

Kevin Phillips:

Which bring me to the remedy sought a few years back when Californians got tired of their governor, Gray Davis. Under state law, they were able to mount a recall effort that took away his job.

To set up a simular federal mechanism, a constitutional amendment would seem necessary, and that could not happen overnight. Still, with impeachment losing credibility as a constitutional remedy, the possibility of having an "incompetent" president with a 35% job approval rating in office for almost three more years represents enough of a threat to an unhappy and beleaguered United States that a wide-ranging debate is in order.

Pssst -- it's on the gas gauge...

More on this...

Regarding the gas gage, the tank if often on the same side of the car as the gage is of the instrument cluster. So if you look at your gas gage and it is on the right side of the speedometer, your gas tank is almost ceratinly on the rioght side of the car. If it isn't, it almost always has the arrow....

Foreign cars typically have the gas tank on the driver's side - US cars on the passenger's side. (This isn't a 100% rule, but its its pretty common).
Next time you get off the Jersey turnpike (or similar freeway) and there's a lot of long lines for gas, you might notice that for the most part American-made cars are in the long lines, while foreign (and more often European than Japanese/Korean) don't have to wait that long because the gas tank is on the opposite side....

(HT to Lifehacker)

Sen. Specter cuts a deal on legislation that would make Bush's warrantless wiretapping legal. He did so by removing a clause that would have mandated that the FISA court rule on the legality of the NSA wiretapping program.

But wait, there's more:

If the FISA court should ever THINK about hearing a challenge to the program, it would have to be from someone who had legal standing to challenge it.

Glenn Greenwald:

...[A]ny would-be plaintiff would be immediately trapped in the type of preposterous, bureaucratic Catch-22 in which American law specializes and which the Bush administration is eager to exploit -- namely, since nobody knows whose conversations have been eavesdropped on, nobody could ever make the showing necessary to maintain such a lawsuit, and since the administration claims that all such information is highly classified, the evidence necessary to make that showing can never be obtained. Thus, in the absence of the provision in Sen. Specter's bill, the administration would be able, in virtually all circumstances, to block a ruling on the legality of the NSA eavesdropping program.

The End...

...unless the Republicans lose their majority.

Sorry, I was watching my Pistons get outplayed by the Caviliers in the second round of the NBA playoffs.

Oh yeah, that's right -- Bush gave a speech immigration reform. Tom Shales has the story.

Update:

• Holy crap -- Bush got mauled by his base.

• Jesse Walker had this quote that sent me over to Wikipedia to check it out:

  Apparently, there's some chatter on the right about impeaching the president for being too soft on illegal immigrants. It's hard to believe, but some folks out there think Bush isn't enough of a caudillo.

  Heh.

Where we came from...

1. First they said they always got a warrant before wire-tapping anyone.
   
2. Next, they said that they didn't need a warrant because they were wire-tapping calls where one party was in another country.
   
3. Soon after, they said sometimes they wire-tapped domestic calls but only when they were talking about al-Qaeda.
   
4. Then they said they were looking at all records of all calls to and from all Americans.
   
5. Now they're saying that they are surveilling the calls of reporters to discover who their sources are.

Along the way, they've resisted submitting this program to any kind of judicial review. Congress is a rubber stamp and has declined to exercise any kind of oversight or investigations or budgetary restrictions on the Executive branch. And this all comes during a time when it is acceptable for the Executive branch to arrest of American citizens without stating the charges against them, hold them indefinitely and without access to legal counsel. Dissenters are accused of being terrorist sympathizers. Whistleblowers fear for their job security. The traditional media has develped a case of Stockholm Syndrome.

And 70% of the American public believes we're on the wrong track and worse off since George W. Bush became president.

What's wrong with this picture?

Sorceress Sarah:

First let me qualify. I own a small data mining company in California. I use off-the-shelf software and hardware that I built into a powerful data mining cluster. I apply considerable computing firepower to assist political candidates and PACs.

What it is:

Now, let's talk about data mining. I should begin with what it is not: Data mining is not magic, though the results can frequently resemble it. Data mining is math. Nothing more. It is math applied to seemingly unrelated or only tangentially related datasets that reveals patterns within the data that may not be evident to even the most rigorous scrutiny. Data mining has been used to find the genetic causes of disease, predict credit card fraud, understand global warming, and a host of other applications from the beneficial to the benign, from the unscrupulous to the malign. It is a tool, and like any other tool it can be used for good or for evil....

Who are they really spying on?

All of this brings us to ask who the real targets of all of this spying is. In truth, it could be the terrorists. In order to identify them, you need to know an awful lot about those who are not terrorists. This helps to eliminate false positives. However, the data for terrorists is so sparse, that even if a possible terrorist is identified, the algorithms used will rarely generate a high probability and a high confidence. In other words, little, if any actionable intelligence. On the other hand, if you want to predict how a person will vote in a given election, you can get an amazingly accurate prediction from the high-quality data from Joe and Jane Sixpack.

Read the rest.

Bush addresses the nation tonight on the need for sending the National Guard to stop illegal aliens from entering the US.

Glenn Greenwald:

This is a major, major political problem for the White House. The measures which Bush's base demands, the ones necessary to really satisfy them -- a huge wall and active deportation -- are far too extreme for Bush to embrace. And yet they aren't going to be satisfied without extreme measures.

The media loves to talk about how Democrats are being harmed because "the Left" of the party is dragging it towards policies which are too extreme, but the reality is that dynamic is taking place within, and is threatening to drown, the Republican Party.

Bush has very few supporters left. The few he has left are demanding that he adopt immigration positions which he clearly opposes and which would alienate most people in the country. And he is far too weak to satisfy them with symbolic measures.

They are actually debating his impeachment over this issue. What is a 29% President to do?

From the Telegraph:

Global markets are bracing for turmoil today after an ominous slide in the US dollar and a slump in equity and bond prices late last week sent tremors through the global financial system, evoking memories of the 1987 crash.

"Good evening, my fellow Americans. In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead.

In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack. As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.

Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history. We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting. I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.

I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because- hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us...

by Mark Adams

DATELINE, TALK LEFT:

Huge breaking news from Jason Leopold just now at Truthout -- Karl Rove has been indicted.

Read more on (I assume) Jeralyn's "non-conversation" with Rove's lawyer, Luskin, as well as an exhibit that Prosecutor Fitzgerald filed that includes VP Dick Cheney's handwritten notes -- written right on a copy Ambassador Wilson's NY Times OpEd of July 6, 2003.

Have they done this sort of thing before? Send an Amb to answer a question? Do we ordinarily send people out pro bono to work for us? Or did his wife send him on a junket?

Bush is about to have a lobotomy. 

Monday is going to be epic.  Congress will be holding hearings in the latest NSA domestic spying revelation, Rove's indictment will be read, and Tony Snow takes to the podium for the first time.

Oh yeah, and His Prez-Nit-Witness will be on "Teh TeeVee" in prime time.  Does it really get any better than this?

As TruthOut reported Friday evening, Rove told President Bush and Chief of Staff Joshua Bolten, as well as a few other high level administration officials, that he will be indicted in the CIA leak case and will immediately resign his White House job when the special counsel publicly announces the charges against him, according to sources.

The next question is whether Rove and Libby rat out Cheney, who btw, left his  gunpowder stained fingerprints all over the NSA marching orders to spy on Americans.

by Mark Adams

E & P:

Bush Approval Rating Hits the 20s for First Time

Prediction:  It won't be the last time.  The latest revelations of the NSA domestic spying program have yet to be reflected in the numbers.  Just wait 'til next week -- ouch.

Are you still concerned about Karl Rove's Svengali-like ability to mesmerize the electorate this fall now that his only job is to make sure republicans are elected to every podunk, backwoods congressional district?  (His only job other than keeping his corpulent carcass out of jail, that is.)

Paul Begala on Imus didn't even tip his hat to the idea that you can never misunderestimate Bush's Brain.  After all, according to Begala (who claims to have known and liked Rove for over 20 years of Texas politics - yech), Rove is the guy who brought Bush from 89% to 29%.

"W" has surpassed his Father in every possible metric.  He had a higher high and a lower low in national approval.  "41" went to war in the Gulf and soared into the 80's, stopped short of Baghdad and plunged into the low 30's.  "43" was even higher, damn near 90% of America was behind him before he went to war, outdid his dad by taking Baghdad, and has done nothing but exhibit his incompetence and dogmatic adherence to a bankrupt ideology ever since.  29%, and the apologists are still in denial.

Five years of tax cuts and they still find some more to cut?  Either they did a piss-poor job of cutting taxes before, or they're adding insult to irresponsibility. 

Face it, they've got nothing, contrary to what the contrarians would have you believe.  Painting immigrants as the new gays, who last time around were the new black, just won't be enough -- especially since the immigration wedge issue splintered the GOP, not the Democrats.

Knowing all this, knowing that America is fed up with the constant barrage of government by graft, politics by pulpit pounding, personnel policy by purge, and intelligence interpretation by idiots; if America returns a Republican majority to Congress this fall, we will deservedly inherit the whirlwind of international scorn reserved for all fascist regimes.

Forget about anyone rigging the voting machines and playing games with registration rolls.  This thing shouldn't even be close.

Twenty-nine percent and falling.  29% without congressional investigations.   29%, a level not seen since Nixon told Congress and the Supreme Court to [expletive deleted] off!  Yet there is no credible impeachment and removal threat. 

29% and Feingold can't even get a committee hearing on censure.  29% and the Kool Aid drinkers are predicting the disintegration of the Democratic party through the next quarter century.  29% and Hillary thinks she can benefit more that just financially by embracing Rupert Murdoch.

29% and still no perceptible change in the business as usual, do-nothing beltway bunch, just collective breath-holding until November (or October's surprises).  29% and the question is not whether but when we should bomb Iran is actually in play in a conservative blogistan that is just frothing for a fight.  As if 29%, and Congressional approval, and the public's support just doesn't matter any more.

As if . . . as if 29% is not a complete repudiation of the entire Bush presidency.

Bryce: "Are you rewriting the section?"

Will: "Yes, sir."

Bryce: "Dramatically?"

Will: "Well I like to think I have a certain flair."

Mrs. Landingham: Good morning Mr President. Did you say you wanted a banana?

Jed: No.

Mrs. L: Nancy, run get the President a banana.

Jed: I really don't want a banana.

Margaret: I can sign the President's name. I have his signature down pretty good.

Leo: You can sign the President's name?

M: Yes!

L: On a document removing him from power and handing it to someone else?

M: Yeah! . . . Or do you think the White House Counsel would say that's a bad idea?

Donna: Josh, this was delivered by messenger.

Josh: What is it?

Donna: It's... wait... wait... no. Damn, my x-ray vision is failing me today.

Josh: Why did environmental terrorists burn down a ski resort?

Toby: To save the lynx.

Josh: The links?

Toby: Yeah.

Josh: Environmental terrorists burned down a ski resort to save a golf course?

Toby: It's an animal.

WOMAN: [on speaker] Hello, welcome to the Butterball Hotline.

[Bartlet runs to the phone.]

TOBY: What the hell is...

BARTLET: Shhhh. Hello!!

WOMAN: [on speaker] How can I help you, sir?

BARTLET: Well, first let me say, I think this is a wonderful service you provide.

BARTLET Leo, as hard as you might try, the Republican Party isn't going anywhere.

LEO
You don't know that for sure, sir, they could all end up moving to Vancouver.

SAM
Lionel?

TRIBBEY
[turns] What're you lookin' at?

SAM
I'm--nothing. I'm not-nothing. Except it's from Pinafore.

From ABC News:

Eighty-five percent of Republicans call it acceptable, compared with 45 percent of Democrats. Crucially for the administration, six in 10 independents say the program passes muster.

Similarly, eight in 10 conservatives call the NSA program acceptable. Six in 10 moderates agree, as do more than four in 10 liberals.

It's important to know what public opinion is on this (and other issues). But it's also important to know what the Constitutional implications are as well. Because, as we know, even if you are a minority of one, the truth is still the truth, the law is still the law.

I can hear the usual suspects now -- this issue a loser for the Democrats! I disagree completely. The fact is, if there is a probability that the president broke the law, then it is incumbent on Congress to investigate, regardless of what public opinion might be. And the only way those investigations can take place, the only way Congress will be able to exercise its constitutional authority, is for the rubber-stamp Republicans to be thrown out of office.

My hunch is this: in the short-term, Bush's numbers (29%) will rebound, partially due to this (besides, they can't go much lower). But so much of the public now has a negative view of him that it won't make much difference. And as time goes on, and we find out more about this program, even the opinion on this will start to turn against him.

God knows I (and everyone else) have spent plenty of time and space discussing Colbert's performance at the White House Correspondents' Assoc. Dinner.

But here is Arianna Huffington with word of Stephen's perspective on that night:

When I ran into him the other night at the Time 100 celebration, he told me that he had strenuously avoided reading anything about his appearance -- the good, the bad, or the ugly -- preferring to focus on the present and putting together his nightly TV show.

If anything, he seemed to be nursing a tender spot about the chilly reception his utterly brilliant performance got in the room that night. He is, after all, first and foremost a performer -- and it's tough for any performer, especially one used to appearing in front of a wildly appreciative crowd night after night, to suddenly find himself playing to a hostile crowd. It's the comedy equivalent of having the Dementors from Azkaban enter your body and suck out your spirit.

Yes, that's a perfect observation. If you've watched the performance, you know that the audience was, ahem, not with him. Cobert knew that but soldiered on regardless, delivering some of this funniest material (the Hindenberg, Monday/Wednesday/Tuesday, etc.) to the nervous audience.

Here's the money graf:

Nora Ephron framed the dilemma perfectly when she asked, "Is it possible for a comedian to utterly kill and bomb at the same time?"

To which I say, Absolutely. This was Dylan plugging in at Newport in 1965. The crowd may have booed, but the music world had forever shifted.

Bingo! That's it in a nutshell. If you've ever seen film of that performance (Scorcese has it in his excellent documentary, No Direction Home), you know what she's talking about. It wasn't necessarily Dylan's best performance. And/but for the audience, it wasn't about the music -- they felt betrayed; they felt Dylan had defied the conventional wisdom and they turned on him. Dylan himself was stunned by the reaction, yet he soldiered on, delivering a seminal performance that changed the sound of folk and pop music for at least the next decade or more. When he was done, there was no going back. It was a real tipping point.

Huffington nails it.

It was just Wednesday that I was wondering when Bush would dip into to the 20's. Harris Interactive has the results.

P.S. What's the scoop on Cheney -- is he in the single digits yet? And do you think the pollsters will go all "NBA" on him and measure his ratings in tenths of a point?

C.J. (to Danny):I thought what I'd do is kiss you, you know, on the mouth, then I'd just get past it...I'd just get past it, and I'll be able to give my work the kind of concentration it really deserves.

JOSH: Do you have any idea how much noise Air Force One makes when it lands in Eau Claire, Wisconsin? We're going to have a party, Congressman. You should come, it's gonna be great.

USA Today:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

Here's the thing: If this is OK with you, then why not just sign a waiver allowing this on your behalf? The phone company could put one in your next phone bill. Simple, easy, fast. On the other hand, if it is not OK, then don't sign the waiver -- and the government cannot collect your phone call records. Period.

[Note: Yes, I know what Orrin Kerr said about the Fourth Amendment in defense of Gen. Hayden. I also know what the Congressional Research Service said about the Fourth Amendment to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Glenn Greenwald has a counterpoint here. Bottom line -- there are lots of opinions on the legality of this. And every time the Chief Executive has been invited and encouraged to get a definitive legal ruling, he has declined (see below). Why?]

And/but here's another thing buried in the article:

Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events.

Glenn Greenwald has more on this:

[The] continuous evasion of judicial review by the administration is much more serious and disturbing than has been discussed and realized. By proclaiming the power to ignore Congressional law and to do whatever it wants in the area of national security, it is seizing the powers of the legislative branch.

But by blocking courts from ruling on the multiple claims of illegality which have been made against it, the administration is essentially seizing the judicial power as well. It becomes the creator, the executor, and the interpreter of the law. And with that, the powers of all three branches become consolidated in The President, the single greatest nightmare of the founders.

As is always the case with Greenwald's stuff, you have to read the whole thing.

P.S. John Madison in Federalist No. 47:"...where the whole power of one department is exercised by the same hands which possess the whole power of another department, the fundamental principles of a free constitution are subverted."

File the following controversy in the "Superfluous Arguments" file.

Apparently there is quite a cat fight going on in Blogville. Someone took it upon himself to ask this question: "Can Muslims Be Good Americans?" Their answer, not surprisingly, was NO.

Of course, some others begged to differ. And in so doing, they triggered a pushback from others who thought their counter-argument was, well, idiotic and over the top. Still others cannot seem to make up their minds one way or the other.

As for me, I think the question is pointless and here's why:

Full disclosure: I'm not a mind-reader. But it seems to me that those who believe "Muslims" (and I don't know if they mean all Muslims or just certain ones, hence the scare-quotes) cannot be "good Americans" (and, again, I have no idea what that means -- perhaps singing the National Anthem in English-only?) are apparently xenophobic to say the least.

Yes, the 9/11 hijackers were fundamentalist Muslims. Yes, many (most?) terrorists around the world espouse a fundamentalist brand of Islam. Yes, the TSA should probably focus more on those who "fit the profile" instead of strip-searching grandma and putting Ted Kennedy on the no-fly list (and I'm saying this as someone who has "met the profile" on more than one occasion).

But these are investigative issues, law enforcement issues and issues of civil liberties. It should be self-evident that you don't persecute the many for the crimes of the few. It is wrong.

Bottom line -- the rights of "Muslims" should be protected by the US Constitution just like "you and me."

Everything else is superfluous.

P.S. Shorter Ara Rubyan: "If you really had a separation between church and state, you wouldn't be arguing about Muslims being good (or bad) Americans."

LaShawn Barber was attempting to draft hypothetical Articles of Impeachment against Bush. Predictably, people in her audience popped a collective blood vessel.

Rosemary wants to help and has asked her audience to pitch in.

As for me, I think talk of impeachment is (to say the least) premature. Not only that: this kind of talk only serves to rile up the Republican base (as evidenced by LBC's audience going off the deep end). Rove and Mehlman are behind it. From their perspective, what's not to like? It is a proven money-maker for the party. Money follows fear.

But I digress.

It's premature to talk about articles of impeachment because we haven't even seen a proper investigation of the Executive branch yet. And apparently we never will as long as the rubber stamp Republican Congress is in the majority.

So cool your jets, people -- Republican and Democrat alike.

P.S. "Investigation" is not the same thing as "impeachment," nor is it the same as "conviction." All of you who are outraged that we might even consider "investigating" the president during wartime are waaaaaaaaaay out of line. You should be aware that It is well within Congress' constitutional authority to engage in oversight and that includes investigating the executive branch.

C'mon -- wouldn't you like to know what happened to all those missing billions of dollars in Iraq?

Because reality is always more fascinating...

UPDATE: A trephination set, circa 1750, is up for auction on eBay right now. Trephination is an ancient surgical procedure where a hole is drilled in the skull. Wonder if it's any different than the tools used to perform brain surgery on Keith?

UPDATE: Holy crap -- there were 25 bids and the winner paid $7500.

• 2 trephines (large and small) with key for the four-sided locating pins

• 2 lenticulars (one round, one pentagonal), the round headed one monogrammed by the owner J.A.D.

• A perforator (also monogrammed J.A.D.)

• 2 elevators (one hinged to rotate and flex against a fabric over steel head brace!)

• An even rarer combined nasal? Speculum with rasp-like interior to grasp foreign bodies marked "migden"

• An ivory bone brush

And, for one last lick of irony, here is a replica of the ring that Keith has worn for the last 30 years -- wonder if he'll get a hole drilled in it.

(HT to David)

On my birthday a couple of weeks ago, Miss Julie surprised me with a copy of Blame the Vain, Dwight Yoakam's new CD. I've been having a blast listening to it. Great arrangements, great songs, love his voice and his phrasing. So I thought I'd link to a couple of videos.

On the left is haunting duet he did with Allison Krause singing If I Were a Carpenter from the Johnny Cash tribute a few months back. It was the best thing on the show -- if you watch only one of these videos, this is the one. Next to that is the interview he did on The Daily Show. (Apparently he's a huge Monkees fan.) And on the end is Dwight Yoakam singing Honky Tonk Man with a kind of bluegrass backing.

• Secretary Jackson Fabricated the Entire Story, Spokesperson Claims, Contradicting Prior Response Very unprofessional (at best) and very likely illegal (at worst). But no worries -- Congress will never investigate.

• Leader of Iran lectures Bush on being a good Christian
  This is what you get when the separation of church and state is torn down and religion trumps government. I wonder if Bush will bother to respond to Ahmadinejad.

• Another poll hits a new low
  68% believe the U.S. is worse off today than it was before Bush became president. Ouch. And with his approval at 31%, how long before he dips into the 20's?

• Israel gives Palestinians a peace deadline
  PA has until year's end or Israel will set its final borders unilaterally. Meanwhile, Fatah and Hamas continue to squabble about not missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

• The difference between New York and New Orleans
  Hillary Clinton talks about how Bush backed New York after 9/11. Wish I could say the same about him backing New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

• Hayden is great (but then so was Goss)
  Watch the video: Bush uses the identical words to nominate Hayden as he used to nominate Goss.

• Should the Democrats campaign for Congressional investigations?
  Some pundits think not; but I think people might want to know (for example) what really happened to those missing billions in Iraq.

• The Evolution of Dance (video)
  How many of these dances did you do in your day?

• The 1-Second Film
  One-second of animation, 90-minutes of credits, all in 70mm, all for a good cause. End-credits are estimated to last 90-minutes and will include a feature-length 'making of' documentary. All profits raised by the finished film will benefit the Global Fund for Women. The best part? You too can be credited as an Associate Producer. All it costs is a $1 donation. No wonder the end-credits last for 90 minutes!

The U.S. ranks near the bottom of the statistics for infant mortality rates among modern nations. Only Latvia is worse off:

In the United States, researchers noted that the population is more racially and economically diverse than many other industrialized countries, making it more challenging to provide culturally appropriate health care.

That's it? That's the explanation? We're more culturally diverse so our babies die in greater numbers?

The U.S. ranking is driven partly by racial and income health care disparities. Among U.S. blacks, there are 9 deaths per 1,000 live births, closer to rates in developing nations than to those in the industrialized world.

There it is -- buried in the fourth paragraph. We should call that the Katrina Effect, i.e., if it's happening to poor black people, then it's OK to not take notice.

The researchers also said lack of national health insurance and short maternity leaves likely contribute to the poor U.S. rankings. Those factors can lead to poor health care before and during pregnancy, increasing risks for premature births and low birth weight, which are the leading causes of newborn death in industrialized countries.

It's pretty clear: sex education in the public schools, free contraception, liberalized abortion laws, and free health care for pregnant women are the cornerstones of the reproductive rights movement.

As faithful watchers of The West Wing know, the incoming President has 18 months, tops, to get anything done. So his/her campaign has to focus on what that is -- and leave the rest for later.

That said, I was interested to see this list of issues that Democrats in Blogville have reached consensus on.

Scan the list and tell me -- which one of these you would campaign on?

Atrios:

I think the "liberal netroots" does have a fairly clear consensus on a number of issues. I'm not going to claim every liberal blogger or blog reader agress with everything on this list - that'd be ridiculous - but nonetheless I'd say there's a pretty obvious general consensus on the following:

• Undo the bankruptcy bill enacted by this administration
  
• Repeal the estate tax repeal
  
• Increase the minimum wage and index it to the CPI
  
• Universal health care (obviously the devil is in the details on this one)
  
• Increase CAFE standards. Some other environment-related regulation
  
• Pro-reproductive rights, getting rid of abstinence-only education, improving education about and access to contraception including the morning after pill, and supporting choice. On the last one there's probably some disagreement around the edges (parental notification, for example), but otherwise.
  
• Simplify and increase the progressivity of the tax code
  
• Kill faith-based funding. Certainly kill federal funding of anything that engages in religious discrimination.
  
• Reduce corporate giveaways
  
• Have Medicare run the Medicare drug plan
  
• Force companies to stop underfunding their pensions. Change corporate bankruptcy law to put workers and retirees at the head of the line with respect to their pensions.
  
• Leave the states alone on issues like medical marijuana. Generally move towards "more decriminalization" of drugs, though the details complicated there too.
  
• Imprison Jeff Goldstein for crimes against humanity for his neverending stupidity
  
• Paper ballots
  
• Improve access to daycare and other pro-family policies. Obiously details matter.
  
• Raise the cap on wages covered by FICA taxes.

I'm sure I could think of a few more things. I left off foreign policy because I find that most people who write about it imagine they're playing the game of Risk. It's nice to have nice bumpersticker doctrines which are ultimately meaningless, but basically "put grownups in charge" is my prescription. Kick the petulant children out.

...adding a few more things which would be obvious if we weren't living in the Grand and Glorious Age of Bush:

• Torture is bad
  
• Imprisoning citizens without charges is bad
  
• Playing Calvinball with the Geneva Conventions and treaties generally is bad
  
• Imprisoning anyone indefinitely without charges is bad
  
• Stating that the president can break any law he wants any time "just because" is bad

...oh, and I meant to include:

• Marriage rights for all, which includes "gay marriage" and quicker transition to citizenship for the foreign spouses of citizens.

Georgia10:

The same Republicans who probably have a dog-eared copy of the Starr report on their bookshelves now react to the word "impeachment" like vampires stepping out into the midday sun. The Republican National Committee has been whipping up fear among its base (and consequently raising money) by claiming that if Democrats are elected, they will...gasp!....impeach George W. Bush.

Shorthand for this is the invocation of John Conyers' name. Conyers, the second-longest serving member of the House, will become the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. And, as we know, Conyers wants an investigation into whether or not impeachment might be warranted.

For this shocking breach of protocol, Conyers has been called on the carpet by the likes of Tim Russert.

Conyers responds:

Perhaps Mr. Russert has forgotten, but I have been a Chairman before. For five years, from 1989 to 1994, I was the Chairman of the House Government Operations Committee, now called the Government Reform Committee. I have a record of trying to expose government waste, fraud and abuse.

That was back when Congress did something called "oversight." You know, in our tri-partite system of government, when Congress actually acted like a co-equal branch. The Republican Congress decided to be a rubber stamp for President Bush instead.

Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we wouldn't be mired in a war based on false pretenses in which we have lost thousands of our brave men and women in uniform and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis.

Perhaps we would not have had an energy policy drawn up in secret with oil company executives that has led to gas prices of more than three dollars per gallon.

Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we wouldn't have a prescription drug plan written by the pharmaceutical companies, that prohibits the government from negotiating for lower prices with the same drug companies, and that no one really understands.

Perhaps, if we had a little oversight, we would know the extent to which our own government is spying on our phone calls, emails and other communications, contrary to the law of the land.

Impeachment is one of the checks that is given to the House in the Constitution. It is a pretty drastic one. Other checks include:

1. Sidetracking the President's agenda
2. Controlling the purse-strings
3. Conducting oversight hearings
4. Impeaching the President

None of that can happen with the current rubber-stamp Republican Congress in place.

So it's clear: if you like the way things are going, vote for the Republican candidate for Congress. But if you think things must change, then vote for the Democratic candidate.

Does that mean impeachment? No. The Democrats will have their hands full taking care of pressing issues like lobbying reform, health care reform, a minimum wage increase, and pay as you go budgeting.

Of course, come to think of it, the Republicans don't want any of THAT either.

Sen. Feingold:

I am concerned by reports that the President may nominate General Michael Hayden to be the Director of the CIA. General Hayden directed and subsequently defended the President's illegal wiretapping program. Neither he nor the rest of the administration informed the congressional intelligence committees about this program, as is required by law. As a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, I will expect any nominee for this position to be committed to the rule of law and respectful of Congress's oversight responsibility. In addition, as we continue our global fight against Al Qaeda and its affiliates and seek to address the intelligence failures of Iraq, we need to make sure the next head of the CIA is committed to both strengthening our intelligence capabilities and providing policy makers with accurate and objective information.

Rep. Hoekstra, Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee:

"I've got a lot of respect for Mike Hayden, and he's done a good job, but I do believe he's the wrong person at the wrong place at the wrong time,'' said U.S. Representative Pete Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican, on "Fox News Sunday.'' "We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time.''

[...]

Tension between Defense Department and civilian intelligence agencies is high in the wake of spying failures before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the U.S. and during the run-up to the Iraq war, Hoekstra said. Hayden's nomination would imply that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has too much power over intelligence, the chairman said.

"I think that clearly will be the perception in the CIA,'' Hoekstra said. ``I don't think you can underestimate the difficulty in rebuilding, reshaping and transforming the Central Intelligence Agency. This is the debate we don't need at this time.''

I can't believe that there are people who still think that Bill Bennett had a point worth making when he said this:

I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could -- if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down. That would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down.

"Abort every black baby and the crime rate will go down." Where's the proof? There isn't any. And that's because criminals are made not born. Bennett apparently believes it would reduce crime because he believes that babies born with black skin are more likely to become criminals. That is a textbook example of a racist belief.

Now, you can quote all sorts of statistics about crime and how it corelates with socio-economic class. Those are relevant here. But Bennett doesn't do that. "Abort every black baby and the crime rate will go down." Bennett is wrong on so many levels.

At the most basic level Bennett goes against American values, the most fundamental of which is self-evident: that all men are created equal.

Here's what Lincoln said in the summer of 1858 in Lewiston, Illinois:

"Now, my countrymen, if you have been taught doctrines conflict with the great landmarks of the Declaration of Independence; if you have listened to suggestions which would take away from its grandeur and mutilate the fair symmetry of its proportions; if you have been inclined to believe that all men are not created equal in those inalienable rights enumerated in our charter of liberty, let me entreat you to come back.

"Return to the fountain whose waters spring close by the blood of the revolution. Think nothing of me -- take no thought for the political fate of any man whomsoever -- but come back to the truths that are in the Declaration of Independence. You may do anything with me you choose, if you will but heed these sacred principles."

I'm with him.

Fox News is baffled. Shepard Smith can't fathom it. Bill Kristol is very surprised at the suddeness.

Fact is, no one knows why Porter Goss, Director of Central Intelligence, resigned without giving warning to even those close to him.

Of course, there's more to it than meets the eye.

Georgia10:

It may not be the hookers. It may not be his possible participation in a million-dollar bribery scheme affecting our national security. It may be that he hated his job, and the CIA hated him. Or it may just be that Goss decided to spent time with his family.

But the press has a duty to find out why one of our nation's top intelligence officials just up and quit all of sudden on a Friday afternoon.

My guess? We'll be hearing (and caring) more about this in the coming weeks than we will about Rep. Patrick Kennedy's driving problems.Josh Marshall:

The simple fact is that when you have an alleged driving under the influence or sleep-driving story and it involves a Kennedy, the press is going to be all over that. What's new. But here's what does get my attention. There's another pretty tawdry story that's out there -- one about members of Congress getting sauced up at rollicking parties and set up with hookers by crooked defense contractors in exchange help bagging pricey defense contracts. That's pretty salacious too. You'd expect the press to be all over it.... why the silence on the much bigger scandal bubbling up out of the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee?

Tim Grieve:

As we noted last week, there's speculation that Goss may have attended poker parties organized by defense contractors implicated in the Randy "Duke" Cunningham corruption probe. One of those contractors has said that he didn't just bribe Cunningham but hired prostitutes for him as well.

The CIA has denied that Goss was a guest at the poker parties -- so far as we know, no one has asked about hookers yet -- but the timing of his resignation today is at least a little curious: TPMmuckraker reported yesterday that the Watergate Hotel, where some of the poker parties are said to have taken place, has received a number of subpoenas from federal investigators looking into the Cunningham case.

Meanwhile, keep an eye on Dusty Foggo, the man Goss installed in the No. 3 job at the CIA. As we've reported previously, the CIA's inspector general is looking into Foggo's oversight of contracts at the agency; NBC says the investigation includes allegations that Foggo steered a $2.4 million contract to Brent Wilkes, one of the contractors implicated in the Cunningham case. Wilkes and Foggo have been pals since college, and Foggo made the scene at -- and even hosted some of -- the contractors' poker parties.

UPDATE: Josh Marshall has more on the story.

by Mark Adams

With three you get eggroll. . .

First there was Representative Alan Mollohan (D-WV), ranking member of the Ethics Committee.  There's something fishy there, a bit of a pungent oder of less than appropriate behavior. However, no actual accusations of outright corruption, no real hint that his duties were compromise, that he sold his vote.  Just some eyebrow raising deals that financially benefited his friends and may have lined his own pockets -- but nothing very concrete.

The appearance of impropriety is enough -- Mollohan stepped down from the Ethics Committee, but still denies any wrongdoing whatsoever.

That's how it's done.  That's how you display integrity.

Next, we've got William Jefferson (D-LA).  Much more serious allegations here. Bribery allegations. A criminal investigation, plea deals, conspiracy.

No charges, yet, but this is a stinking cloud of criminality, not just some fishiness.  The Democratic leadership not only shunned him, but called for a full blown ethics panel investigation.

As you might recall, there's been a moratorium, a truce between the Dems and GOP on flinging ethics violations in the supercharged partisan atmosphere of what passes for political discourse today, ostensibly to avoid a meltdown of the legislative process.  (As if...)

I'm not sure, but I doubt if it counts as a violation of the "truce" when you haul one of your own before the committee to face the music.  Nevertheless, it looks like the truce is over.  It seems that Speaker Denise Hastert smells blood and wants to confuse the electorate into thinking that the kleptocracy he presides over which sells defense contracts to the most lubricated palm includes the minority party as well.

I don't usually heap praise on Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, but she's called this one early, often and right.  She was the one who called on Mollohan to step down and she wasted no time in distancing herself and the party from Jefferson.  This is completely 180 degrees from how the Republican leadership dealt with and is still dealing with the likes of Cunningham (jailed), Delay (indicted) and Ney (about to fall, and fall huge).  The GOP coddled, covered and protected their slugs, and by doing so swallowed the bile into how they conducted business.  They even changed the ethics rules to shelter the criminals they embraced.

So, the question this morning, is whether we hang another member of the House Democratic Caucus out to dry do to a strictly personal indiscretion involving an automobile accident, a "fluid" story denying alcohol but admitting to an ill-advised mix of prescription medication, and a D.C. police force seemingly all too willing to sweep the whole matter under the rug.

Thank god nobody was hurt, but did the guy's last name have to be Kennedy?

The video on the left is of the original event; the video on the right is of the analyst, Ray McGovern, being interviewed afterwards by Anderson Cooper of CNN.

For those of you who think Stephen Colbert was rude and unfunny at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Assoc. Dinner last weekend, watch the video of Bush's appearance there in 2004. He was really funny -- in fact, he killed 'em!

"Those weapons of mass destruction have gotta be somewhere."

The mast-head on Andrew Sullivan's blog quotes George Orwell: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle."

Well, he's struggling with the obvious all right -- and losing:

One thing that today's high gas prices strongly suggest is that, whatever else it was, the Iraq war was surely not about oil. If you care about cheap oil above everything else, you'd have found some deal with Saddam, kept the oil fields pumping, and maintained the same realist policy toward Arab and Muslim autocracies we had for decades.

Here's Cunning Realist:

This is like a lawyer arguing that because his client used the wrong combination on a safe, surely he didn't mean to steal anything.

[...]

[A]scribing competence and intellectual rigor to the Bush administration---the assumption that it thought the war though carefully beforehand, weighing the risks and possible consequences, instead of using its patented faith-based approach. Based on what we know now about the prewar planning, and in light of Katrina, Miers, Kerik, Plamegate and everything else, exactly how is that assumption justified?

A couple of years ago, Sullivan's train of thought might have carried the day. But not any more. It's like Bush said:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

JR Hand:

Just now in an interview with CNN's John King, First Lady Laura Bush answered a question about her husband's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech of May 1, 2003, by saying that (paraphrasing) "the fact is that the mission had been accomplished for those aboard the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Their job was complete, and they were coming home."

So with that in mind, JR Hand re-writes Bush's famous "Mission Accomplished" speech:

["Newly understood" text in italics, Exclusivity-inferring emphasis added in bold to pre-existing text.]

---
"Thank you. Thank you all on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln very much.

Admiral Kelly, Captain Card, officers and sailors of the USS Abraham Lincoln, my fellow Americans on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln, major combat operations in Iraq have ended for you only. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed, if we assume that everyone in the United States and all of our allies are on board this vessel right now, as I say these words.

And now our coalition is engaged in securing and reconstructing that country. THEY still have shit to do. But you're done.

In this battle, we who are present here right now have fought for the cause of liberty and for the peace of the world outside the confines of this ship. Our nation and our coalition are proud of this accomplishment, at least your part of it, which as I said, is now completed, yet it is you, the members of the United States military on this boat, who achieved it. Your courage, your willingness to face danger for your country and for each other on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln made this day possible.

Because of you, and you only, our nation is more secure. Because of exclusively you the tyrant has fallen and Iraq is free.

Read the whole thing.

The Unclassified Media Project publishes meaningful messages in various media including audio, video, and print.

[Note: Click the play button, then click the Pause button and wait a minute or two for the entire video to load -- then click Play again. It's a pretty big file and might not stream from the get-go.]

Thought you'd enjoy this musical interlude from one of my favorite singer/songwriters, Steve Earle. The song is called Jerusalem:

[Note: Click the play button, then click the Pause button and wait a minute or two for the entire video to load -- then click Play again. It's a pretty big file and might not stream from the get-go.]

Well maybe I'm only dreamin' and maybe I'm just a fool
But I don't remember learnin' how to hate in Sunday school
But somewhere along the way I strayed and I never looked back again
But I still find some comfort now and then

Then the storm comes rumblin' in
And I can't lay me down
And the drums are drummin' again
And I can't stand the sound

But I believe there'll come a day when the lion and the lamb
Will lie down in peace together in Jerusalem

And there'll be no barricades then
There'll be no wire or walls
And we can wash all this blood from our hands
And all this hatred from our souls

And I believe that on that day all the children of Abraham
Will lay down their swords forever in Jerusalem

Because we suffer from white guilt.

It began, I believe, in a late-20th-century event that transformed the world more profoundly than the collapse of communism: the world-wide collapse of white supremacy as a source of moral authority, political legitimacy and even sovereignty...

The collapse of white supremacy--and the resulting white guilt--introduced a new mechanism of power into the world: stigmatization with the evil of the Western past. And this stigmatization is power because it affects the terms of legitimacy for Western nations and for their actions in the world.

In Iraq, America is fighting as much for the legitimacy of its war effort as for victory in war. In fact, legitimacy may be the more important goal.

This would be laughable if it wasn't so pathetic.

Seriously -- who is this guy describing? Michael Dukakis? No -- he's writing this during a period of global hegemony by the neoconservative branch of the Republican party. George W. Bush has unlimited power to do what he wants -- and he suffers from white guilt?

This is straight out of Dr. Strangelove.

If what he says is true, then Bush and the Republican majority in Congress need to be sent packing immediately. Because if you are going to fight a war -- if you are going to invade a country and impose democracy at the end of a gun barrel -- then this kind of tortured mentality is more destructive and and self-defeating than almost anything else I can think of.

If you are the kind of pointy-headed neo-conservative intellectual that believes this crap, then you need to get out of government immediately.

Better not to invade in the first place than to get bogged down in this kind of war and suffer 20 thousand American casualties, $300 billion in losses from the Treasury and the wrecking of our reputation around the world for at least the next generation.

Sony BMG is looking for a 'Director, New Technology Content Protection, NYC.'
Travel the world, meet interesting musicians, and lock up all their content so no one can hear it.

(HT to Cory)

Or could it?

On March 15, 1918, Wyman said to diverse persons...in speaking of the atrocities reported to be committed by the German soldiers, that our soldiers would act in the same way and commit the same atrocities...and that soldiers of the U.S. Army are no better than the German soldiers.
Sentence: 6-12 years

On April 19, 1918, Johnson said in Missoula that the United States Liberty Bonds were no good. That government would not back them up. That the man that bought them would never get his money back. That he would lose it. That the U.S. government was no good.
Sentence: 2-5 years

In March 1918, a third-degree committee in Forsyth grilled Starr about Liberty Bonds and forced him to kiss the flag. "What is this thing anyway?" he asked. "Nothing but a piece of cotton with a little paint on it, and some other marks in the corner there. I will not kiss that thing. It might be covered with microbes."
Sentence: 10-20 years

On Registration Day at Lone Ridge School House near Poplar, Klippstine told the registrar: "It is a wonder that our goddamned Government didn't send us some papers before we got in war so we could have had something to say about it and then we wouldn't have had war."
Sentence: 4-10 years

UPDATE: Montana to pardon 78 convicted of sedition:

Nearly seven dozen Montana residents convicted of sedition during World War I were set to be posthumously pardoned by Gov. Brian Schweitzer in a ceremony Wednesday.

The sedition pardons will be Montana's first, said Clem Work, a University of Montana journalism professor whose book inspired the pardon effort.

(HT to Cory)

by Mark Adams

In response to Helen Thomas's dogged determination to get the President to answer why he wanted to go to war since every proffered rationale for the Iraq invasion has proved fallacious, Bush stated emphatically that neither he nor any President wants to go to war.

War with Iraq was somehow just thrust on him. 

There he was, tending to the accumulated garbage at the ranch, clearing away the brush, when without warning, (or detailed invasion plans, hyped intelligence, a strategy for transforming the Middle East through military force, a "set" policy, or outright lies about WMD's) war came intruding on his vacation plans.

Fine.  Let's leave that fairy tale alone for a minute.  The question I have is, why doesn't the President want to win the war?

We've turned enough corners in Iraq to make a dodecahedron, yet not one purple-finger moment has alleviated the need for our presence to provide what passes for security there.  They haven't brought one single unit home because they were replaced by Iraqis who "stood up."

But it's not simply the refusal of the Pentagon to admit that they have not discredited the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force achieving clear objectives pursuant to an exit strategy.  There's more here, much more that indicates a clear pattern of undermining a peaceful conclusion to our military involvement in the region. 

Bruce Reed makes a great observation:

What do you get when you mix a Bush 41 speechwriter with a Sunday celebrity from Fox? Well, if Peggy Noonan and Terry Bradshaw had a grown son together, he might sound a lot like Tony Snow. To paraphrase Stevie Wonder, baloney and irony go together in perfect harmony.

But wait, folks, he's just warming up...

It's too early to predict whether these talents will combine for greatness or disaster. But so far, the results look promising. Asked by Cox News whether he would be frank with the president, Snow delivered this gem:

"They want people to express their opinions. You're not coming here to drink the Kool-Aid. You're coming here to serve the president. And at this particular juncture I think what you want is as much honest counsel as you can get."

In just four sentences, Snow managed to refer to himself in the first, second, and third person – even switching back and forth in the same sentence. When he said, "I think what you want is as much honest counsel as you can get," he referred to the president in the second person and himself in the first person and (implicitly) the third.

Um, yep, he's absolutely right. Please note that I had to diagram Snow's sentence on a whiteboard to confirm what Reed knew right from the start.

But here's the clincher!

Even Yogi Berra couldn't go from first to third on a single quote.

Stop, Bruce, you're killing me! As they say on the Internets -- ROTFLMAO!

I think most of us would agree -- the local library shouldn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your computer.

And yet...Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them the most.

Net Neutrality allows everyone to compete on a level playing field and is the reason that the Internet is a force for economic innovation, civic participation and free speech.

But if you, the public, don't speak up now, Congress will cave to a multi-million dollar lobbying campaign by telephone and cable companies that want to decide what you do, where you go, and what you watch online.

This isn't just speculation -- we've already seen what happens elsewhere when the Internet's gatekeepers get too much control. Last year, Telus -- Canada's version of AT&T -- blocked their Internet customers from visiting a Web site sympathetic to workers with whom the company was having a labor dispute. And Madison River, a North Carolina ISP, blocked its customers from using any competing Internet phone service.

If Net Neutrality is abandoned, then you, me and almost everyone else will be affected:

• Google users
  
• Innovators with the "next big idea"
  
• iPod listeners
  
• Political groups
  
• Nonprofit organizations
  
• Online purchasers
  
• Small businesses and tele-commuters
  
• Parents and retirees
  
• Bloggers...

...in short, just about everyone will be affected in a bad way.

Don't let Congress ruin the Internet. Speak up now and tell them to protect Internet freedom now, before it's too late.

Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA) has already introduced the Network Neutrality Act of 2006, which "[offers a] choice between favoring the broadband designs of a small handful of very large companies, and safeguarding the dreams of thousands of inventors, entrepreneurs, and small businesses. This legislation is designed to save the Internet and thwart those who seek to fundamentally and detrimentally alter the Internet as we know it."

Tell your Congressmen to support it.

It's very easy --

1. Visit this site
   
2. Fill in the form
   
3. Write a brief note urging support for Markey's legislation
   
4. Click submit -- they'll send it to your members of Congress

Please don't wait -- do it now.

And don't forget to forward a link to this article to all your like-minded friends.

Thanks.

Our favorite Bush Republican apologist reminds us of something we all knew to be true: that when the facts are against your side and the law is against your side and the polls are against your side, when your side's gang of true believers is dwindling fast, then you have to rile up your side by launching a stale attack on "chicken liberals." You know -- femininazis, wetback-sympathizers, queers, queer-lovers, married queers, married queers adopting children, Jane-Fonda-loving-cheese-eating-white-wine-swilling-NASCAR-hating-liberals-from-Massachusetts -- whatever it takes. My god! The next election is Armageddon and you need all the Christian soldiers you can muster.

And if the irony is too much -- that you're apparently wasting that astronomical IQ that God gave you -- blast 'em all for being jealous of your good looks.

In short, become the sort of Republican caricature that Stephen Colbert loves to mock:

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

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

...[For example, take] Iraq... If you think about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rationale for war. But doesn't taking Saddam out feel like the right thing...right here in the gut? Because that's where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen...the gut.

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

YouTube.com (at C-Span's request) has taken down the videos linked below. But Crooks and Liars still has their link up.

C-Span also has the show on their site. Google Video also has it.

1. Click the "play" button to view the first part of Colbert's presentation:

"Democracy is our greatest export. At least until China finds a way to stamp it out of plastic for 3 cents a unit."

2. Here's the second part of Colbert's presentation:

"This President has a very forward thinking energy policy. Why do think this President is down on the ranch cutting that brush all the time? He's trying to create an alternative energy source. By 2008 we will have a mesquite-powered car."

3. Here's the third and final part of Colbert's presentation:

(Colbert as WH Press Secretary): "I have a brief statement. The press is destroying America."

From AP:

"Day labor is not a niche market," said Abel Valenzuela, a professor at the University of California at Los Angeles and one of three authors of the first national day-labor study, which was released in January. "It's now entering different aspects of the national mainstream economy."

Forty-nine percent of day labor employers are homeowners, according to 2,660 laborers interviewed for the study. Contractors were second, at 43 percent. The study also found that three quarters of day laborers were illegal immigrants and most were from Latin America.

Day laborers like homeowners, too. Shady contractors routinely stiff them. Not homeowners -- the workers know where they live.

The Decider blames the Generals
Colin Powell, the former Secretary of State and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, recounts that he counseled Bush, the Commander in Chief, to send more troops to Iraq. We know the result. Condi Rice, the current Secretary of State, explains it away with this comment:

"When it came down to it, the president listens to his military advisers who were to execute the plan."

Why does Condi hate the military?

Iran: Double or nothing
Josh Marshall:

The only crisis with Iran is the crisis with the president's public approval ratings. Period. End of story. The Iranians are years, probably as long as a decade away, and possibly even longer from creating even a limited yield nuclear weapon. Ergo, the only reason to ramp up a confrontation now is to help the president's poll numbers....It turns on how far a desperate president will go to avoid losing control of Congress.

Lawbreaker in Chief
Boston Globe:

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution....

Bush has cast a cloud over ''the whole idea that there is a rule of law," because no one can be certain of which laws Bush thinks are valid and which he thinks he can ignore...

[H]e also thinks a very significant amount of the other laws that were already on the books before he became president are also unconstitutional...

Most people think this is normal behavior for the Chief Executive. It is not. The framers would be appalled. Fact is, the only way for things to go back into balance is for the Legislative branch to re-assert its Constitutional powers by exercising any or all of its proper authority:

1. Sidetrack his agenda
2. Cut off his funding
3. Conduct proper oversight of his actions
4. Impeach and and convict.

None of this will happen until the rubber-stamp Republican majority is overturned at the ballot box. In short -- if you're happy with the way things are, vote for the Republicans. If you believe things have got to change, vote for the Democrats.

(HT to John)