October 2007 Archives

by shep

It was on a dreary night of November that I beheld the accomplishment of my toils. With an anxiety that almost amounted to agony, I collected the instruments of life around me, that I might infuse a spark of being into the lifeless thing that lay at my feet. It was already one in the morning; the rain pattered dismally against the panes, and my candle was nearly burnt out, when, by the glimmer of the half-extinguished light, I saw the dull yellow eye of the creature open; it breathed hard, and a convulsive motion agitated its limbs.

How can I describe my emotions at this catastrophe, or how delineate the wretch whom with such infinite pains and care I had endeavoured to form? His limbs were in proportion, and I had selected his features as beautiful. Beautiful!--Great God! His yellow skin scarcely covered the work of muscles and arteries beneath; his hair was of a lustrous black, and flowing; his teeth of a pearly whiteness; but these luxuriances only formed a more horrid contrast with his watery eyes, that seemed almost of the same colour as the dun white sockets in which they were set, his shrivelled complexion and straight black lips.

The different accidents of life are not so changeable as the feelings of human nature. I had worked hard for nearly two years, for the sole purpose of infusing life into an inanimate body. For this I had deprived myself of rest and health. I had desired it with an ardour that far exceeded moderation; but now that I had finished, the beauty of the dream vanished, and breathless horror and disgust filled my heart. Unable to endure the aspect of the being I had created, I rushed out of the room, and continued a long time traversing my bedchamber, unable to compose my mind to sleep. At length lassitude succeeded to the tumult I had before endured; and I threw myself on the bed in my clothes, endeavouring to seek a few moments of forgetfulness. But it was in vain: I slept, indeed, but I was disturbed by the wildest dreams.

--Mary Shelly, Frankenstein

Apparently, Michael Gerson has been having nightmares dreams about the creature he helped to create.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

[cross posted at Daily Kos]

Notwithstanding Krugman, it looks like a narrative is forming for the general election, and trust me, you've heard this song before: firmness versus nuance. It's a Republican frame and that means the traditional media will be eating it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. And that means there was only one winner (see below).

But first, hear me out:

To the extent that Edwards (and Obama) attacked Clinton on being "for it and against it at the same time," it helps the Republicans as much as it helps any Democrat. Why? Because, for Republicans, right and wrong don't matter -- only firmness and resolve matter. [Note: did I miss something or did Edwards pass when it came to declaring his position on Spitzer's proposal?]

Granted, Edwards is showing he, too, has cojones. The problem for Edwards comes later -- during the general election. Far more people believe Giuliani and/or McCain have the stones than believe Edwards does. So, down the line, Edwards may only have himself to blame. That's what happens when candidates accept their opponents' frame -- it leaves your opponent with plenty of ammunition during the general.

Also: another Republican frame is going to be fear. So when the debate turns to drivers' licenses for immigrants (as it will for at least the next few days) I'll give you one guess as to who that helps. Hint: It ain't the Democrats. [UPDATE: Jonathan Singer addresses the pros and cons of the issue.]

Deal with it: fear is a Republican frame. Fear of terrorists, fear of illegal immigrants, free-floating fear of "colored people." In fact, racial fear will be the most potent theme that the Republican base responds to.

And Giuliani is all about racial fear. Clinton? Buddies with Charlie Rangel and everyone in Harlem (just ask O'Reilly). Edwards --helping those in poverty? Please. You know who that helps, right? Obama? Too black. Not black enough. Can't make up his mind about what his race is. Except we know he's soft. Soft on Islamofascists. And you know what color their skin is.

Bottom line: the real winner last night was George W. Bush. And, by extension, his rightful heir: Rudy Giuliani. Giuliani who (like Cheney and Bush) has made his career out of fear. Long before 9/11, he made a name for himself by appearing at -- and later, as mayor, ordering police riots. And that's not to mention the infamous killing of Amadou Diallo. In fact, before this is over, the 9/11 thing may very well have fallen by the wayside, having been exposed as his weak spot, not his strength. His strength? Giuliani is the one virulent, determined, resolute, angry white male who will stick it to em, once and for all, wink wink nudge nudge.

Will the Dems be ready for that? As I see it, the only way to be truly ready is to be prepared to hang Bush around Rudy's neck and let him sink to the bottom of the fetid ocean he swims in. It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it. Who among the Dems is ready to do that?

Because you know Rudy's coming for you. Don't say you weren't warned.

by shep

Responsible for countless deaths and untold suffering.

by Mark Adams

Wonder no more. His debate performance was simply outstanding, taking punches well, and dishing them out even harder.

MSNBC Democratic Debate in Philadelphia – Reviews Are In

NBC's Domenico Montanaro: "Edwards Came Back Stronger" Against Clinton on Iran. "But Edwards came back stronger, taking the liberal mantle. He said does any of this sound familiar. This was ‘literally in the language of the neo-cons.’ How is this Democrats standing up and saying no. That was impassioned and a strong response. Tries to show himself as the clear, sharp alternative. This is wedging going on. He might be elbowing Obama out of the way on this issue. His, albeit reasonable, but tepid answer on this, just wasn't grabbing the spotlight."

Jib Jab has done it again. This time they've made a Halloween horror show about zombie Republicans coming to get ... me! Yow!

• I always wondered if Obama could take a punch; now, it turns out, he can't throw one. UPDATE: Chris Matthews, that runaway beer truck, on what Obama should say from here on out.
• Whatever happened to John Edwards? Wasn't he running for President? When you search on "Edwards" at Google News, only four out of the top ten stories are about the former Senator from North Carolina.
• Apparently Republicans now believe that Terrorists Prefer Hillary. So let's save ourselves a lot time and money, shall we? Let the terrorists decide. Whoever they pick, we'll vote against them.
• Speaking of crackpot Republicans, Rudy Giuliani's "facts" about prostate cancer recovery rates in England v. USA are embarassingly (and provably) wrong. So it raises the age old question about Republican presidential candidates: is he a liar or a dope? Either way, we don't need another one those in the White House.
• I had a chance to hear Dan Senor talk over the weekend; he's yet another in a long line of Republicans who've turned on the Bush administration while pretending they had no part in creating the mess we're in.
• Speaking of clueless failures, I caught former presidential speechwriter Michael Gerson on TDS last night. He's got a new book out (you'll have to find your own link, sorry) that pretends as though it's 1999 again and that -- wait for it -- Republicans should be more compassionate. Ack.
• Speaking of compassion, the Republicans cannot win if they try to be like Democrats. Think about it: if the restaurant menu has two items -- a Cheeseburger and a "sort of Cheeseburger" -- which one are you going to order?
• UPDATE: On the other hand, it looks like their strategy might be to run against incumbent-Hillary. This accomplishes two things: conveniently erases the collossal screwup of the Bush years from the history books, while shifting the blame to the Clintons (something Republicans are naturally good at).
• Looks like Hillary understands the game plan.

Shorter Podhoretz: "We ignored Hitler and look what happened."
Shorter Zakaria: "We contained Mao and look what happened."

Shai Agassi is a Silicon Valley technologist with a great idea.

Agassi believes in the future of electric cars, but he doesn't want to build a company to produce them; he wants to create an intrastructure of electric-charging stations in the US and around the world.

The innovative part of his plan is that he isn't so much interested in battery technology. In other words, people don't have giant gas tanks in their cars now, nor do they have fuel storage tanks at their homes. They buy gas, on the road, when they need it. So why bend yourself out of shape trying to develop a battery with a long range of travel?

He'a already raised $200 million and expects to roll out the plan in 2008.

“If you listen to the car companies, they suggest there is a fix, but it’s not there yet,” said Stephen J. Girsky, a partner at the investment firm Centerbridge Partners who formerly served as an adviser to General Motors.

However, the new venture, which Mr. Agassi has named, for now, Better Place, would be viable even with existing lithium-ion battery technology, he said.

The economics will be more compelling in Europe, where gasoline is roughly twice as expensive as in the United States, he said. Assuming a life span of 1,500 battery recharges, he said that the energy cost of all-electric cars would be about 7 cents a mile. That would be less than a third of the cost of driving a gasoline-powered car today.

“It’s much easier to transport electrons than octane molecules,” he said. “We’ve already got a grid that goes around the entire world; all we have to do is extend it.”

The sooner we're independent of foreign oil, the sooner the Middle East ceases to matter to us, one way or the other.

by Mark Adams

Courtesy Blogenfreude at
Agitprop: Or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Propaganda.

I know, I know ... the first word that popped into your mind was "Giuliani", wasn't it?

The kickoff begins with a tribute to the inspirational (or is that, "inspirational") David Horowitz and his praise of Disaster Capitalism's hero, Pinochet, of the "Miracle Economy."

One can only hope progressives everywhere learn from the horrible mistake of hounding this old tyrant, a sad case of Activist International Tribunals, and Leave Rummy Alone.

Rumsfeld flees France fearing arrest

Former US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fled France today fearing arrest over charges of “ordering and authorizing” torture of detainees at both the American-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and the US military’s detainment facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, unconfirmed reports coming from Paris suggest.

US embassy officials whisked Rumsfeld away yesterday from a breakfast meeting in Paris organized by the Foreign Policy magazine after human rights groups filed a criminal complaint against the man who spearheaded President George W. Bush’s “war on terror” for six years.

Under international law, authorities in France are obliged to open an investigation when a complaint is made while the alleged torturer is on French soil.

According to activists in France, who greeted Rumsfeld shouting “murderer” and “war criminal” at the breakfast meeting venue, US embassy officials remained tight-lipped about the former defense secretary’s whereabouts citing “security reasons”.

Anti-torture protesters in France believe that the defense secretary fled over the open border to Germany, where a war crimes case against Rumsfeld was dismissed by a federal court. But activist point out that under the Schengen agreement that ended border checkpoints across a large part of the European Union, French law enforcement agents are allowed to cross the border into Germany in pursuit of a fleeing fugitive.

“Rumsfeld must be feeling how Saddam Hussein felt when US forces were hunting him down,” activist Tanguy Richard said. “He may never end up being hanged like his old friend, but he must learn that in the civilized world, war crime doesn’t pay.”

International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) along with the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR), and the French League for Human Rights (LDH) filed the complaint on Thursday after learning that Rumsfeld was scheduled to visit Paris.
U.S.A.

Run Rummy! RUN!

Cunning Realist:

Make no mistake: the administration is now in damn-the-torpedoes mode on the economy and financial markets. The housing market must not be in the headlines a year from now. The stock market must be at or near its highs when the administration leaves office so capital gains can be realized at good prices before a Democratic president raises taxes, and so apologists can point to the Dow and claim for the next few generations that Bush's fiscal policy "worked."

The solution? Blame it on Iran!

Do you think this particular administration will sit by idly if oil goes to $100, then $110, then $120 -- and a gallon of gas hits $4 in some areas during next summer's driving season, just a few months before the election? "Unrest in Nigeria" and "refinery problems in Texas" (and lately "Turkey-Kurd tensions") have limited shelf life as excuses. Statists hate pressure, but they fear consequences -- particularly when the culpability is both obvious and unavoidable.

This is why keeping Iran as an ever-ready trump card is so important. If those consequences get bad enough and no excuse will do, the use of force must be at least minimally plausible to the public and the rest of the world. In the meantime, the tension -- preferably continuous and drawn-out -- created by the mere possibility of a military strike is useful as an ongoing excuse for the spiraling price of oil...

Don't say we weren't warned. You know it's coming.

by shep

Certain people, who need not be named but who whisper in the ear of the president and the leading Republican candidate to replace him and who are hired by the most prestigious (and not so much) news organizations to share their opinions with the public, think we should attack the country of Iran for providing (completely unproven) support for insurgents fighting against the US occupation of Iraq.

Well, who wouldn’t want to attack the country that arms its enemies, who end up killing their troops? Still, the main moral difference between Iraq/Iran and this seems to be that the Soviets were actually invited into Afghanistan by its government (much like our own venture into Vietnam). (Can you imagine if they simply came up with some phony excuse to invade and occupy the country, hanging its leaders and killing a million innocent Afghanis?)

Yet the IEDs Stinger missiles and other support supplied by our Quds Force CIA and China, Pakistan and Iran (”The Coalition of the Willing”), killed 10,000 or more Soviet troops (good thing the Soviets didn’t have nuclear weapons and strategic bombing capability, huh?).

The (most ironic) poison fruit, poisons us still:

“Some American groups, particularly neoconservatives came to believe that they were responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. The Islamists that fought also believed that they were responsible for the fall of the union, and this may have indirectly lead to 9/11. Osama bin Laden, for example asserting the credit for ‘the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahidin in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role,’ but ‘collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant.’”

But, as we have learned from tragic effect, they are absolutely incapable of learning anything from history:

“Some participants felt leverage was not the main issue; rather, US policymakers knowingly abandoned Afghanistan to the Pakistanis and Saudis to ‘sort out’ Afghanistan’s future. However, the participant said, ‘The Pak-Saudi agenda for Afghanistan was totally ruinous . . . it was [that] agenda which leads to Al Qaeda and all the rest of it. . . . Did you not see this in 1992, as it emerges?’”

The obvious answer is either “no” or they just didn’t think it mattered very much.

Regardless, the Soviets didn’t attack the US over arming its enemies in Afghanistan, we didn’t attack China for arming our enemies in Korea and Vietnam and China didn’t attack us for arming theirs. Pakistan has illegal nuclear weapons, Maddrassas, a Muslim population that is far more radicalized than Iran and it arms Islamic radicals who kill our troops in Afghanistan while it provides safe haven to Osama bin Laden (if he's still alive). We call it an ally.

In any event, the people who have shaped the foreign and military policy of the United States for the past seven years (especially Vice President Cheney) are not the people who should be allowed anywhere near that sort of power ever again. Just as their authoritarianism, bellicosity and aggression has made Osama bin Laden’s fondest wishes come true it has also driven the price of oil to record highs, funneling ever more $billions to countries like Iran and Russia even as it unites Muslim nations against us and weakens us economically and militarily.

If the nation’s political and media leaders had either the slightest bit of level-headed judgement or a functioning moral compass the neoconservatives wouldn't be setting the agenda, they would be driven from the public sphere in shame and eventually tried for their crimes against humanity.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

This happens to me every morning at 4:15 am.

KPBS of San Diego has done a terrific mashup of Google Maps and the latest information on the wildfires. You have to see it to believe it.

View Larger Map

Oh, we can use buzzwords like "law and order," we can call it "fighting islamofascism" but the bottom line is that Rudy's base looooooves him because they know he'll stick it to 'em, if you catch my drift.

How do you fight that? It's very difficult. Don't expect Rudy's opponents to "play the race card" Nuh-uh -- that will backfire. Besides, Rudy will probably beat them to it: look for campaign ads next fall showing Al Sharpton and Hillary Clinton standing side by side and smiling.

You know it's coming.

Today, Thursday, Bush will at the scene of the California wildfires. This is such a familiar scene that I thought I'd reprise Jon Stewart's observation about the meta-president:

Some leaders are men of words; others are men of action. President Bush is a man who uses words to describe actions...The President is not there to take action, apparently the reason he's there is to tell you why he's there...It is the classic President Bush move: reassuring people by informing them he was there to reassure them...He's the meta-president.

Here it is -- we (you and I) are slated to spend $2.4 trillion (with a T) over the next 10 years on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The White House brushed off the estimate as too conditional. "It's just a ton of speculation," said White House press secretary Dana Perino. "We don't know how much the war is going to cost in the future."

Better not to think about the future. Same goes for how we got here -- that's the past and we certainly don't want to dwell on that either. All there is, is today. Live in the moment! That's the ticket.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., said voters were suffering from "sticker shock...America's future is being held hostage by the cost of the war," he said.

His concern would be most admirable if it wasn't totally covered in crap. Why doesn't he just say "no" to more funding? Why doesn't he, you know, lead the way to ending the war?

It reminds me of something I saw while watching the trailer for that new Robert Redford movie, Lions for Lambs. In it, Reford's character said this:

"They bank on your apathy. They plan strategies around it...The problem is not with the people who started this. The problem is with us -- who do nothing."

Don't just sit there: call your Congressman. NOW.

Call Rahm Emanuel.

Call Nancy Pelosi.

Tell them -- again, as many times as it takes -- "no." Just "no."

"The problem is with us who do nothing."

Randy Paush is dying but he wants to tell you what he's learned about living.

Randy is a professor at Carnegie-Mellon University. In September, he delivered his "Last Public Lecture", entitled "Really Achieving Your Childhood Dreams." This talk was modeled after an ongoing series of lectures where top academics are asked to think deeply about what matters to them, and then give a hypothetical "final talk", i.e., "what wisdom would you try to impart to the world if you knew it was your last chance?"

In Randy's case it wasn't hypothetical -- in August he was told he had 3-6 months left to live a "normal" life.

Since giving his lecture, the video has been downloaded over 1 million times. It runs about 90 minutes (the first 8:30 are introductions and testimonials). Settle in and watch it -- it is deeply moving but, at the same time, upbeat and inspirational.

On October 22, he appeared on Oprah's show and delivered a 10 minute version of the lecture.

Take some time out of your busy schedule right now and listen to what Randy has to say. It will stay with you far longer than anything else you'll hear or see today.

[Cross posted, with poll, at Daily Kos]

Yaakov Kirschen's cartoon goes like this: "The optimists think that the US Presidential campaign will be about the war in Iraq, while the pessimists think it'll be about the war in Iran." Substitute "Democrats" for "optimists" and "Republicans" for "pessimists" and I think you have a prescription for Democratic electoral disaster.

Hear me out...

Flash forward 6-12 months: tensions are high with Iran; maybe we've had some cross border skirmishes (like the Turks vs. the PKK). Maybe we've concentrated more ships, planes and bombs into the Gulf region. I'm not a betting man but the odds seem pretty strong we'll see that, or worse, in the immediate future. Who's going to stop it? Congress? Riiiiiiight. This is the same bunch that couldn't even compel Harriet Miers to comply with a crappy subpoena.

So now tensions are high. Very high. We're talking 24/7 war mania. Of course, the media is no help. In fact, Murdoch's new WSJ business channel bangs the drums louder than anyone -- whatever is good for the corporation is good for America. Blackwater stock goes stratospheric.

Who do you think this help the most -- Democrats or Republicans? Or more to the point: which candidates does this help most? Don't shoot the messenger, but I'm here to tell you it's short list -- and it has more Republicans on it than Democrats:

• Giuliani -- Death to Islamofascism. No more 9/11's.
  
• McCain -- The son and grandson of Navy admirals, blah blah blah.
  
• Clinton -- Stood (and will stand) shoulder-to-shoulder with the Commander in Chief

The rest of the field are (rightly or wrongly) perceived as lightweights. Not only that: the press will cast the story that way as well. Romney? Edwards? They cancel each other out as pretty boys. Obama bet on Iraq (being the optimist, see above, that he is) but he has no cred on Iran. Thompson? Compared to McCain and Giuliani, he's about exciting as a plate of grits. Dodd & Biden? I'd like to think they could stop Bush/Cheney via the Senate but I'm not counting on it. Richardson? His strength is his weakness -- he's a diplomat.

For those of you who were electoral optimists (see above) this is not good, my friends: McCain and Giuliani already poll relatively well against Clinton. A looming war with Iran helps them more than it helps her. Whichever one of them gets the nomination, all bets are off for an easy Dem takeover in the White House.

One bit of good news: I think Hillary Clinton intuitively sees these pieces on the chess board and is thinking several moves ahead. The others either don't -- or can't -- deal with it as it stands now.

Am I missing something here? I don't think so.

Bottom line: the worse the situation with Iran, the better it is for the Republicans in November 2008.

More information is better. But only if you have the ability to find what you are looking for when you need it.

Michael Wesch:

This video explores the changes in the way we find, store, create, critique, and share information. This video was created as a conversation starter, and works especially well when brainstorming with people about the near future and the skills needed in order to harness, evaluate, and create information effectively.

Wake up: This is what happens when you lose Net Neutrality, people.

You thought you'd heard it all when it comes to, um, creepy sexual behavior from Republicans? Dig this -- Glenn Beck talking about that Maine middle school giving 11-year-olds the pill:

BECK: OK, Michael, sex preventative? Does it prevent sex from 11- year-olds?

MICHAEL GRAHAM, FORMER GOP CONSULTANT: Hey, you know, parents are going to beat up and abuse their children. I say we just give them Band- Aids and helmets so they don`t do any long-term damage while it`s going on, because you can`t stop it.

This is the dumbest thing I`ve ever heard. There`s no crime you can prevent completely, but it is impossible, Glenn — and believe me, I`ve tried — to touch an 11-year-old kid sexually and not commit a crime. This is criminal behavior.

Brrrrrrr. That's cold.

(HT to Jane)

The Turkish PM weighs in from the op-ed page of the WSJ:

"While we search for ways to address this painful issue and develop our relations with Armenia, we cannot live in the past. Our sincere offer for dialogue and reconciliation is on the table," Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan wrote in an opinion piece published in Friday's Wall Street Journal, European edition.

"It is incumbent on Armenia to take the next step," he added.

Well, thanks but no thanks. Who would want to participate in a discussion when the very points you make will land you in jail?

From kos diarist upstate NY:

Turkey has made an offer to Armenia. Let’s get a team of historians together to look through the archives and decide this once and for all. A seemingly fair offer, one the Armenians are not too keen to take up because of their distrust of Turkish historians and academics. Of course, they should trust some Turkish historians, such as Taner Akcam of the University of Minnesota, one of the few to have undertaken research in the Turkish state archives. Or Prof. Gocek from the University of Michigan.

Unsurprisingly, Akcam came to the conclusion that a genocide sponsored and systematized by the state was undoubtedly committed, and that its premeditated nature was evident. Akcam’s book, A Shameful Act, testifies to his research in the archives. This makes the Turkish offer of a joint commission curious, since the few historians who have seen the state’s documents seem to draw the same conclusion.

Perhaps Turkey is relying on a form of intimidation through its national laws which criminalize such statements that claim the Armenian genocide occurred.

Akcam himself was charged under Article 301 with insulting Turkishness, as have the Nobel prize novelist from Turkey, Orhan Pamuk, and the Armenian-Turkish editor Hrant Dink who was gunned down by a right-wing fanatic. His son was convicted just this past week for publishing his father’s last news article citing the genocide.

Is there a disincentive for a Turkish historian to go into the archives and risk being jailed? The answer is obvious.

For the rest of the academic world, with access to documents from Armenia, firsthand eyewitness accounts from western diplomats and travelers such as US Ambassador Robert Morgenthau, not to mention Akcam's firsthand research in the archives, this is a dead issue. In historical circles, there is no dispute.

From time to time, a few historians deny the use of the term genocide, but invariably these are academics who holds chairs sponsored by the Turkish government.

Shorter Peggy Noonan: "Hillary owes it us to explain why we hate her so much."

by shep

I am not a constituent of yours in West Virginia or a well-funded lobbyist from K Street so it should be doubly easy to dismiss my comment, as I am sure you will choose to do.

However, I am a lifelong Democrat and I am outraged at your support for retroactive telecommunications company immunity in the current FISA legislation reportedly coming from your committee. I consider your support of immunity for telecommunications companies as nothing less than selling your office to the highest bidder. Obviously, there is no more disgraceful act by a public official.

I will do everything in my power to see that you are replaced by a Democratic candidate who respects the rule of law, the privacy rights of American citizens and who understands and upholds the ethical responsibilities of public office.

Sincerely,
[shep]

[NOTE:] Congratulations to Senator Chris Dodd, who shamed most of his Democratic colleagues, including both of his Senate rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, by vowing to block FISA legislation that gave retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies for civil suits arising from illegal disclosure of customer information to the government. I immediately donated to his campaign and he can go get a beer and a massage with it for all I care.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Stephen Colbert's run for the presidency reminds me of another comedian -- Pat Paulsen -- who ran back in 1968.

"All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian."

"A good many people feel that our present draft laws are unjust. These people are called soldiers."

Presidential Campaign Slogan: "I've upped my standards. Now, up yours."

Paulsen was a regular on the Smothers Bros. show on CBS. On the first show after the election, Paulsen opened by reading his victory speech. "Pssst, Pat," came a voice, off-camera. "You lost." Without blinking an eye, the hangdog Paulsen calmly turned over the paper in his hand and read his concession speech.

[Cross posted, with a poll, on Daily Kos]

Sometimes you have to pull way, way back and look at the big picture.

What that means is that you have to realize that, years from now, when people think back on these times, they'll only have a dim understanding of what went on in our day. I'm not talking about the scholars and the political junkies, the historians and documentary filmmakers. I mean the everyday people who make up this country.

Do you remember your President Nixon?
Do you remember the bills you have to pay?
Or even yesterday?

This morning I was thinking about a poll I saw: Bush's approval rating at an all-time low of 24%, Congress' approval rating at half that and 2/3 of the poll respondents saying the country's off on the wrong track. We have an intuitive sense that we've built our lives on the quicksand of fear, uncertainty and doubt. What's worse is that it's every man for himself and devil take the hindmost. It's pretty discouraging. And I'm an optimist!

How did we get here?

And you may ask yourself
How do I work this?
And you may ask yourself
Where is that large automobile?
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful house!
And you may tell yourself
This is not my beautiful wife!

Look at that poll: it's saying is that the president has gone too far and isn't listening to the public telling him to pull back. And it also says that the Congress hasn't gone far enough and isn't listening to the public telling them to push back. As a result, more people are shrugging their shoulders and walking away from the whole mess. Of course, this is fine with the corporatists who have always held power (more on that below).

Historians can debate the role of the radical Republicans which were a backlash against the Clinton years which were a backlash against the Reagan-Bush years which were a backlash against the Carter-Ford years which were a backlash against the Nixon years which were a backlash against the Johnson years, ad infinitum.

But answer is even simpler than that (if no less difficult to accept): more people than ever are watching and speaking out. The progressive netroots is a fine example of this. But what's happening is that it is too easy for our elected leadership to hide and do nothing -- or worse, do what's best for their corporate sponsors.

I think the primary root of this is the fundamentally wrong idea that corporations are people and that they have all the rights that people have. They don't (more on this below). Inertia also plays an important role here: our system of government makes it too easy for this to happen every day.

How can we fix this?

Maybe our form of government, as young as it is, is fundamentally flawed. Larry Sabato is one of the few establishment scholars who has come out and said it:

[T]he American political system is inequitable and doesn't work very well. But it is unfair and doesn't work well because the Constitution does not contain workable rules to govern it.

If we wanted to point fingers, we could place the blame for this deficiency squarely on the shoulders of the Framers. Yet that would also be unfair. The demands of their time were very different; we now need to redesign the Constitution to accommodate the political needs of our time.

Now, if you're like me, you read a sentence like that with some apprehension. But I don't think Sabato is a radical bomb-thrower -- although he does quote at least one guy who was:

"No society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right.” —Thomas Jefferson (in a letter to James Madison from Paris, September 6, 1789)

Sabato does one good thing: he comes up with some specific course corrections that he calls "A More Perfect Constitution." It's a list of 23 proposals focusing on the Congress, the Presidency, the Supreme Court, and extending to our political system. He also calls for universal national service and (wait for it) a national constitutional convention.

I don't agree (or disagree) with all of Sabato's proposals. For one thing, he is fronting a symposium to promote his ideas (and his book) and the roster of attendees includes Samuel Alito, keynote speaker. No thanks.

That said, he is one of the few scholars who has come up with some concrete proposals. Here they are:

Josh Marshall checks out Giuliani's foreign policy team. Why not? It's the key to knowing what to expect if Rudy gets in.

Bottom line? It's everyone and anyone who was too crazy to make the cut with the Bushies.

Both the right and the left have attacked the Armenian Genocide Resolution. But Gary Kamiya believes the resolution is necessary.

by shep

Reading Daily Kos this morning, a came across this peculiar claim by DHinMI in a long essay about Blackwater and the GOP:

“But the main reason why it’s wrong to refer to Bush authoritarianism as fascist is, simply, that it’s not fascist. Fascism exalted the state as the most powerful force, more powerful than any other institutions, including business.”

My reply is: you’re making a distinction where there is no difference, in both fascism and the Republican model of government.

The most perfect illustration of that is the current purchase of immunity for cooperating in illegal domestic spying for telecom companies by former political officials (in both parties) now employed by the telecoms and lobbying by current government officials, such as intelligence director Mike McConnell, who were formerly (directly) employed by the telecoms.

I’ll let Glenn Greenwald describe another dimension to the lack of distinction between “the state” and business:

”The top telecom officials are devoting substantial amounts of their energy to working on highly classified telecom projects with the Bush administration, including projects to develop whole new joint networks and ensure unfettered governmental access to those networks. Before joining the administration as its Director of National Intelligence, Mike McConnell spearheaded the efforts on behalf of telecoms to massively increase the cooperation between the Federal Government and the telecom industry.

The private/public distinction here has eroded almost completely. There is no governmental oversight or regulation of these companies. Quite the contrary, they work in secret and in tandem -- as one consortium -- with no oversight at all.”

Strangely, DHinMI’s thesis is based in large measure on Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine which contains no such denial of Republican fascism:

“A more accurate term for a system that erases the boundaries between Big Government and Big Business is not liberal, conservative or capitalist but corporatist. Its main characteristics are huge transfers of public wealth to private hands, often accompanied by exploding debt, an ever-widening chasm between the dazzling rich and the disposable poor and an aggressive nationalism that justifies bottomless spending on security. For those inside the bubble of extreme wealth created by such an arrangement, there can be no more profitable way to organize a society. But because of the obvious drawbacks for the vast majority of the population left outside the bubble, other features of the corporatist state tend to include aggressive surveillance (once again, with government and large corporations trading favors and contracts), mass incarceration, shrinking civil liberties and often, though not always, torture.”

From Wikipedia on “corporatism”:

“Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy, as well as sometimes running them, either directly or indirectly through shill corporations.”

From Wikipedia on fascism:

”Fascism also operated from a Social Darwinist view of human relations. Their aim was to promote "superior" individuals and weed out the weak. In terms of economic practice, this meant promoting the interests of successful businessmen while destroying trade unions and other organizations of the working class. Lawrence Britt suggests that protection of corporate power is an essential part of fascism. Historian Gaetano Salvemini argued in 1936 that fascism makes taxpayers responsible to private enterprise, because "the State pays for the blunders of private enterprise... Profit is private and individual. Loss is public and social."

And from the self-proclaimed “founder” of fascism himself:

”The Fascist State lays claim to rule in the economic field no less than in others; it makes its action felt throughout the length and breadth of the country by means of its corporate, social, and educational institutions, and all the political, economic, and spiritual forces of the nation, organised in their respective associations, circulate within the State.” (p. 41).
—Benito Mussolini, 1935, The Doctrine of Fascism, Firenze: Vallecchi Editore.

Any way you slice it, fascism is about the alignment of all institutions of state power, especially corporate power, against the interests of democratic representation, populist policy and individual liberty, i.e., liberalism. It seeks not to enhance the state relative to business but to remove the barrier between corporate interests and the interests of state entirely. Meanwhile, fascism seeks to suppress or coerce any remaining conflicts with those interests as determined by its elites in both business and government, because they are the same people and the same interests.

From the corruption of the democratic process in the Supreme Court sanctioned Republican coup of 2000 and political prosecutions and voter suppression by Republican government officials, to restructuring the tax system to favor wealth rather than work, to outsourcing the writing of US law to corporations, to privatizing entire government functions like protecting US government officials overseas, to the militarization of society through fear mongering, to colluding between government and corporations to violate the law to spy on the lawful activities American citizens, this Republican government cannot be distinguished from US corporate interests and their combined interest in monopolizing the country’s wealth and power and undermining the liberty and self rule of average citizens. That is fascism by every meaning of the word.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Robert Greenwald:

Rudy Giuliani is running for office on how he handled 9/11 and here we have proof positive that firemen were killed because his administration did not fix the long-standing (since 1993!) problems with the radios.

This Brave New Film (BNF) investigative report calls attention to four key questions about Rudy's handling of the broken radios from firemen's families and experts:

1. Why was nothing done to improve NYFD radio performance for seven years after a clear need was demonstrated in the 1993 World Trade Center attack?
   
2. When new radios were finally ordered, why did the city block other companies besides Motorola from bidding on the contract?
   
3. Once Motorola was given the contract, why did its cost jump from $1.4 million to $14 million?
   
4. Why were these new radios never tested?

These questions should and must be investigated. New York City councilman Eric Gioia has the power to begin an investigation. If we can garner enough attention and signers, we have a major opportunity to help launch an investigation.

Urge the New York City Council to investigate Rudy's failure to fix the inadequate radios.

Sign the petition →

Don't wait. If you don't want any more lies, any more self-aggrandizing, any more passing the buck, any more corruption, then tell everyone you know about this petition.

Maybe we can stop him before he gets the nomination. We don't need another one like Bush/Cheney in the White House.

Don't wait. Sign the petition now. And show everyone you know this film.

by shep

Now that's just funny.

That's interesting, but not a total shock -- Haggard's people were part of FDR's New Deal Democrats.

What's really interesting is his take on George W:

"The thing that gets under my skin most about George W. is his intention to install fear in people," he said, after walking me down a hallway lined with gold and platinum records. "This is America. We're proud. We're not afraid of a bunch of terrorists. But this government is all about terror alerts and scaring us at airports. We're changing the Constitution out of fear. We spend all our time looking up each other's dresses. Fear's the only issue the Republican Party has. Vote for them, or the terrorists will win. That's not what Reagan was about. I hate to think about our soldiers over in Iraq fighting for a country that's slipping away."

[...]

Haggard sensed a certain reluctance among the Hillarians to embrace his endorsement—in part, I imagine, because he's not shy about saying that one of the biggest things Hillary has going for her is Bill, who ranks up with Reagan in the Haggard pantheon and not only because the former President used to have a pickup truck with Astroturf in the back. "He cared about this country, about our problems," Haggard said, with a twinkle. "And I figure that whatever she doesn't know, he does."

It's partly because he'd have to campaign in front of the electorate he has, not the electorate he wished he had:

Does the American public care about the Nobel, a prize awarded by a bunch of ... foreigners? Wouldn't winning a "peace" prize brand Gore as weak on national security? Doesn't it show that he thinks he's better than us? Who would want to get a beer with a Nobel Peace Prize winner? Wait, did he just sigh?

It's also partly because he'd have to run in front of the political culture he has, not the political culture he wished he had:

If he entered the race, Gore would run headlong into the same dim-bulb, theatrics-obsessed political press that did him so much harm in the 2000 race. He'd also run into Hillary Clinton's political machine. He would own the climate change issue, so other candidates would have to start attacking him on it and distancing themselves from it. He'd be forced to spend his time discussing one piece of frenzied ephemera after another, instead of focusing on his animating passion. He'd end up in a bruising, demeaning battle, and winning some peace prize wouldn't shield him.

The process of electing a president, like so many things in the U.S. today, has become small and petty. It shrinks, cheapens, simplifies, and plasticizes those who take part in it, [as] Gore has already learned.

Fact is, Gore is smarter -- and already more powerful -- than the average politician-activist. He understands he can do more for his cause outside of this system than he could ever do from the inside. It's a rare individual who can say this. It is a rare individual who has the ability and potential to affect change on a global basis. Gore is that kind of person.

I think he believes that he can affect the kind of global change that is necessary -- without putting himself through the soul-destroying exercise that US politics has become. That's why I don't think he'll run.

Keith Olbermann interviews Hillary and when it's over I'm thinking, "Wasn't she running against a couple of other guys...? Whatever happened to them?"

• Congratulations to Al Gore. Wow -- an Oscar, an Emmy, and a Nobel all in one year. Not even Liza Minelli did that.

• 
  Why is everyone so upset with Ann Coulter? She's only said what any Christian learns from the time they start Sunday School. And another thing: if she's so heinous why does CNBC (or NBC, or CNN or FNC) put her on the air in the first place? Lastly, isn't it true that you can be a girl and still have a Y chromosome? IJS.

• "Hunh. A resolution condemning genocide. I think you gotta go 'yes' with that one. [If not], what is the right response to historic mass killings? Historic mass flowers?"

• And, speaking on behalf of the entire Armenian community, I would like to say we are thrilled that Aasif Mandvi has been named The Daily Show's Senior Armeniologist.

• I read the Wall Street Journal and I know they loooooove to complain that the richest 10% of Americans already pay 2/3 of all taxes, as though that proves their taxes are too high. What you never hear is what percentage of their total income this tax load represents. When THAT number reaches 30-50% or more (as it does for middle-class families) then we can talk about taxes being too high. Not only that: I say they should be paying 90% or more of all taxes in this country. And if they want to become tax exiles, then good riddance. They weren't real Americans after all, were they?

• George W. Bush can grow up a mean, nasty, coke-snorting drunk but once he accepted Jesus, it wiped the slate clean. Rudy Giuliani can rail against the gun lobby as Mayor of New York, but in a post-9/11world he's in bed with the NRA -- and they're on top. So what now for Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center -- now that he's accepted Jesus as his Lord and Savior? Maybe he and Ann Coulter can go on a National Reconciliation Tour.

On one hand, I'd be the first one to tell you that mandating the (non)obervance of history is a stupid idea. Freedom of speech and all that.

But now that there are 226 co-sponsors for a House resolution calling on the US to recognize the World War I massacres of Armenians as genocide, well, one can't be faulted for hoping that the White House would come down on the side of the angels.

Apparently, one's hopes were dashed:

President Bush strongly urged Congress on Wednesday to reject legislation that would declare the World War I-era killings of hundreds of thousands of Armenians a genocide, saying it would do “great harm” to relations with Turkey, a key ally in the Iraq war.

Really, you don't have to be Armenian (like me) to be offended by that.

Fact is, Armenians have never demanded reparations, nor have we sued for a right of return. Nor have we even asked for an apology. What we would like is an acknowledgement that it happened. Then maybe we could talk about why. Is that too much to ask?

Bush reiterated his opposition to the bill, saying he recognized the tragedy, but that the determination over whether the events constitute a genocide should be a matter for historical inquiry, not legislation.

Of course. And that "historical inquiry" long ago decided that the genocide did occur and the Turkish government perpetrated it.

Let's get one thing straight -- unlike French law, there are no penalties in this resolution for denying it occured. And unlike Turkish law, there are no penalties for declaring that it did. The resolution simply says that it happened. And it makes this "Declaration of Policy:"

The House of Representatives--

(1) calls upon the President to ensure that the foreign policy of the United States reflects appropriate understanding and sensitivity concerning issues related to human rights, ethnic cleansing, and genocide documented in the United States record relating to the Armenian Genocide and the consequences of the failure to realize a just resolution; and

(2) calls upon the President in the President's annual message commemorating the Armenian Genocide issued on or about April 24, to accurately characterize the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1,500,000 Armenians as genocide and to recall the proud history of United States intervention in opposition to the Armenian Genocide.

UPDATE: The resolution passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee 27-21.

I posted a poll on this issue at Daily Kos. Visit, vote and read the comments -- there's over 100 and counting.

Jon Stewart was on fire with this segment from Tuesday night:

Some leaders are men of words; others are men of action. President Bush is a man who uses words to describe actions...The President is not there to take action, apparently the reason he's there is to tell you why he's there...It is the classic President Bush move: reassuring people by informing them he was there to reassure them...He's the meta-president.

Republican.

Update: John Cole

”I simply can not believe this is what the Republican party has become. I just can’t. It just makes me sick to think all those years of supporting this party, and this is what it has become. Even if you don’t like the S-Chip expansion, it is hard to deny what Republicans are - a bunch of bitter, nasty, petty, snarling, sneering, vicious thugs, peering through people’s windows so they can make fun of their misfortune.”

(H/T Digby)

Republicans. Debating in Dearborn. During Ramadan.

Oy! What a country.

MSNBC:

A small private intelligence company that monitors Islamic terrorist groups obtained a new Osama bin Laden video ahead of its official release last month, and around 10 a.m. on Sept. 7, it notified the Bush administration of its secret acquisition. It gave two senior officials access on the condition that the officials not reveal they had it until the al-Qaeda release.

Within 20 minutes, a range of intelligence agencies had begun downloading it from the company's Web site. By midafternoon that day, the video and a transcript of its audio track had been leaked from within the Bush administration to cable television news and broadcast worldwide.

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

Like Valerie Plame, the founder of the company is a woman, Rita Katz.

"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder, who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE's methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries.

The precise source of the leak remains unknown.

Yes, well.

No doubt the White House will release a statement saying that if there had been a leak from this administration, they'll want to know who it is... and if the person has violated law, the person will be taken care of.

Speaking of William Kristol and Hillary Clinton...Kristol challenges Giuliani's "electability" argument:

The difference in Rudy's relative performance and Thompson's [versus Hillary in the polls] really isn't that great. And it's not as if Rudy is defeating Hillary while everyone else is losing. They're all losing, in accord with the current generic gap between the parties. Indeed, six months ago Rudy was running 4 points ahead of Clinton (in the Real Clear Politics average), whereas he's now 6 points behind. So the notion that Rudy would significantly outperform other Republicans in the general election, or that Rudy alone can magically save the GOP from defeat, or that longer exposure to him helps with swing voters - all of this is far from clear.

OK, so Kristol buries the lede: Giuliani has lost 10 points to Clinton in the last six months. And all the others are doing even worse than Giuliani.

And this doesn't even begin to address the possibility that Christian evangelicals will peel off and vote for a third-party candidate -- or even just stay home -- if Giuliani gets the nod.

And, frankly, we haven't even gotten to the point where people -- independents -- have begun to dig into Giuliani's crackpot past, e.g., the miles and miles of audio tape from his NYC radio show. Wait til that starts to sink in.

P.S. Speaking of Christian evangelicals. Why aren't they supporting Mike Huckabee? He's polling below the margin of error and his fundraising totals are abominable. Shouldn't he be their guy? He's got it all -- and he's loads more personable than Sam Brownback. IJS.

Recently the Washington Post published a list of national security and foreign policy advisers to the Clinton campaign. Buried near the bottom is this entry:

Michael O'Hanlon, Brookings senior fellow and former Congressional Budget Office defense and foreign policy analyst, supporter

What's intriguing is that he is not listed as "foreign policy adviser" as are many others on the list; nor is he even listed as "an informal advisor." Just "supporter." I guess that's because you can't say "turd in the punchbowl" in the newspaper, can you?

Of course I mean that in a nice way.

Glenn Greenwald:

[O'Hanlon is] among the biggest cheerleaders for the war, [and] repeatedly praised the Pentagon's strategy in Iraq and continuously assured Americans things were going well. They are among the primary authors and principal deceivers responsible for this disaster.

He (O'Hanlon) also co-signed the infamous letter from Project for the New American Century (along with, hmmm...let's pick someone at random... William Kristol).

Predictably, this has raised all sorts of hackles around Lefty Blogville.

When I see these folks [O'Hanlon, Mark Penn, Terry McAuliffe, et. al.] on Hillary's team, it makes me cringe. I do not want these people to have direct influence on our next president.

Neither do I. But when I read the rest of the names on the list (presumably released by the Clinton campaign), I wonder how much influence O'Hanlon might have:

Here's the partial list, in alpha order:

• Madeleine K. Albright
  
• Samuel R. Berger
  
• Gen. Wesley K. Clark
  
• Leslie H. Gelb
  
• Richard C. Holbrooke
  
• Martin S. Indyk
  
• Joseph Sestak
  
• Strobe Talbott
  
• Togo D. West
  
• Joe Wilson

Not a bad bunch to have available in your Rolodex.

The real question is: when they talk, will she listen? As of right now, we can't really say, can we?

by Mark Adams, KOS-posted

Over at Hullabaloo, Tristero (who really has one of the coolest obscure handles on the interwebs) and Digby have been trying to get a handle on what to do about The Villagers, those out-of-touch, self-important, insulated members of the Washington D.C. elite. Stoller has picked up the meme and Glenn Greenwald connects it to Adam Smith's 1776 treatise, Wealth of Nations, warning us of the dangerous behavior of our Washington establishment's orthodoxy, the immunity the "Beltway Village" enjoys from the consequences of their imperial intrigues.

Useful as this cute metaphor can be to illustrate the sequestered sense of parochialism and disconnect that informs the pampered malignancy infesting the ruling class mentality of the Capital's group-think, it doesn't quite capture the essence of what we are witnessing today -- the Imperial Reality.

When Jay Rosen spoke of the "Palace Press," it clicked for me. Rosen remembers well the phrase, ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality." It's the same thing that bothers Chris Matthews about Hillary's campaign strong-arming G.Q. Magazine over an uncomplimentary article with threats to restrict their access to Bill. The palace at the center of Disneyland on the Potomac is built entirely on the sycophantic dance of power -- those with it and those who want it.

Information and access is their currency. Hillary's team playing this out in public threatened to expose the charade. It's not what she did, but that she didn't care to be discreet is what violated the rules of Higher Broderism.

Naturally, in this "Information Age," the truism that "Information is Power" plays out with even more vengeance than when feminist Robin Morgan coined the phrase. What we usually miss is the ritual involved in accumulating such power, through secrecy, that her entire quote warns about:

"Knowledge is power. Information is power. The secreting or hoarding of knowledge or information may be an act of tyranny camouflaged as humility."

Taking their cue from this most secretive of administrations which has dispensed with the outmoded notion of humility by going directly to the tyrant stage, the "Courtiers," the Beltway punditry and D.C. journalists in consort with bureaucrats, officials and advisers play the game of "who can tell what to whom." Were it not for the Valerie Plame affiar, Judith Miller would still be the belle of this ball.

If the dance should remind you of anything, try thinking Louis XIV's royal court at Versailles consolidating all power in the Royal Person himself, an absolute monarchy that controlled all rituals of power and association of the government's functionaries and the aristocracy with one goal: perpetuation of their privileged position. It's the Peter Principle writ large, or more precisely, fear of Negative Selection that keeps the dancers moving to the tune.

Hardly the same mental picture you get when thinking of a quaint little village.

Sen. Barack Obama:

"I said, you know what, I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic."

"My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals."

Exactly -- it's not what you say, it's what you do. A simple message, no? But there is more, much more, to it than this.

But let me digress for a moment.

Mark has a round-up of the reaction from the other side. It illustrates the old saying: It's the hit dog that howls.

That said, Obama's declaration got me thinking about how there are only two REAL parties in this election cycle:

• Flag Party
  
• Constitution Party

One party pledges allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. The other party pledges to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

One party promises rule by emotion (fear), spectacle and symbolism. The other party promises to rule by law, using the blueprint laid out by the founding fathers, to protect the rights and liberties of individual Americans -- whether they're in the majority or not.

One party pushes new, liberty-restricting amendments -- like the anti-flag burning amendment. The other party promotes the amendments we already have -- like the First Amendment -- amendments that have stood the test of time, history and our culture.

But wait -- there's even more:

The real difference between these two de facto parties is this: Members of the Flag Party know what's at stake. But Constitution Party members? Not so much. They don't even know they're members of their own party! They have no demonstrated ability to frame the nature of their philosophy, or even the nature of the opposing arguments in the current election cycle -- security vs. liberty, words vs. actions, symbols vs. reality.

Even Obama, in yesterday's comments, didn't (or couldn't) lay out the boundaries of this battlefield -- although he did come close.

• Judge to Sen. Craig: You're stuck with your plea: Are Republicans stuck with Craig? [Answer: Yes.]

• Kudos to Obama: Blocks odious FEC Republican nominee Spakovsky...for now.

• Conservative "pro-family" activists would rather vote for a third party candidate than they would vote for Rudy Giuliani. I'll believe it when that candidate hands Florida to the Democrats in 2008. IJS. That said, maybe it's time for Rudy to claim he's pro-life now. After all -- 9/11 changed everything!

• Now that Pete Domenici has announced his retirement, will Bill Richardson quit his run for the White House and try for the Senate instead? His campaign says, no, they're in it to win it and they are "confident" of their chances. Right.

• Speaking of losers, do you ever get the impression that Fred Thompson is just going through the motions? What ever could he have been thinking? (Answer below.)

• Sleep-walking his way through Iowa, Thompson tries to out-Reagan the rest of the Republican field by slamming "the Soviet Union." Yes, you heard me. The Hunt For Red October is on again, baby!

• Speaking of the USSR, today is the 50th anniversary of the launch into space of Sputnik. Did you know that what the Soviets were really trying to do was draw attention to the ICBM that launched the little-satellite-that-could?

• Speaking of Sputnik, here's an interview with Arthur C. Clark (now nearing 90) wherein he remembers where he was that fateful day when his prediction finally came true.

• Props to Sergey Korolyov, the genius behind the Soviet space effort. He was called "The Chief Designer" because his identity was deemed a state secret by the Politburo.

• A new AP-Ipsos poll has Bush's approval ratings at 31 percent, the "lowest level" ever recorded in that poll's history. Not sure if they mean lowest for any president or just lowest for the Bush family.

• Surprise! People still really, really like Bill Clinton.

And here it is, your moment of Zen:

by shep

Glenn Greenwald observes the “outrage” over only the latest revelation of Bush Administration lawlessness and depravity:

“Today's revelations involve the now-familiar, defining attributes of this administration -- claims of limitless presidential power, operating in total secrecy and with no oversight, breaking of laws at will, serial misleading of the Congress and the country and, most of all, the shattering of every previous moral and legal constraint on our national behavior.”

Greenwald also explains why “shock” is no longer a reasonable or acceptable explanation for our failure as a nation to repudiate, remove and prosecute the major lawbreakers in the Bush Administration, starting with George Bush and Dick Cheney:

“But in another, more important, sense, this story reveals nothing new. As a country, we've known undeniably for almost two years now that we have a lawless government and a President who routinely orders our laws to be violated. His top officials have been repeatedly caught lying outright to Congress on the most critical questions we face. They have argued out in the open that the "constitutional duty" to defend the country means that nothing -- including our "laws" -- can limit what the President does.”

“It has long been known that we are torturing, holding detainees in secret prisons beyond the reach of law and civilization, sending detainees to the worst human rights abusers to be tortured, and subjecting them ourselves to all sorts of treatment which both our own laws and the treaties to which we are a party plainly prohibit. None of this is new.”

The country was in deep shock after 9/11, why George Bush’s approval ratings literally doubled overnight. And I could give a pass to politicians and, to a lesser extent, journalists, right up to the point that George Bush forced UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq to invade. That proved without doubt that both the WMD justifications, as well as the promise that war was not inevitable, were bald-faced lies.

From there forward, most of the Washington establishment, media and political figures alike, have grossly violated their duty to the public. In response to the media’s failure to inform the public of Bush/Cheney corruption, in the face of a steady stream of revelations about their egregious conduct, Jay Rosen offers this explanation:

“The most important of these is that journalists and their methods were overwhelmed by what the Bush White House did -- by its radicalism. There is simply nothing in the Beltway journalist's rule book about what to do, how to act, when a group of people comes to power willing to go as far as this group has in expanding executive power, eluding oversight, steamrolling critics (even when they are allies) politicizing the government, re-working the Constitution, rolling back the press, making secrecy and opacity standard operating procedure, and repealing the very principle of empiricism in matters of state.”

“The press tends to behave because it does not know how to act, in the sense of striking out in a new direction when confronted with a new fact pattern”

But Greenwald correctly observes that no such justification can plausibly excuse any so-called journalist today:

“But we are now way past the point where that excuse is plausible. Anyone paying even minimal attention is well aware of exactly how radical and corrupt and lawless this administration is. We all know what has happened to our standing in the world, to our national character and our core political values, as a result of the previously unthinkable policies the Bush administration has relentlessly pursued. Ignorance or incredulity can no longer explain our acquiescence. Accommodating and protecting the lawbreaking of high Bush officials is widely seen by our Beltway elite as a duty of bipartisanship, a hallmark of Seriousness.”

“Shock” is both inadequate and unnecessary to explain the near complete acquiescence* from our supposed leaders in the media and government to continuing down the radical and dangerous path Republicans have taken us.

Believe it or not, the likely motive to explain certain people’s abandonment of fundamental American (and Judeo/Christian) values to reconcile themselves with Bush Administration conduct, was simple pride; the inability to accept the notion of a lost moral compass, having been badly fooled and having participated in a gross injury to the nation and millions of innocent Iraqis.

The mechanism for doing so is simple denial. From 30% dead-enders who delude themselves that destroying the lives of millions of Iraqis, unleashing an endless sectarian conflagration and destroying the rule of law across the globe is the moral, visionary (George Bush = Harry Truman) course, to beltway journalists and “centrist” politicians who satisfy themselves that the “radical” behavior is to forcefully confront Bush Administration lawlessness, these are people who cannot deal with their own feelings of guilt and unconsciously choose rationalizations to avoid them.

As Naomi Klein makes clear, shock wears off. But pride, self-delusion and rationalization go on and on.

*I should note that there were remarkable examples of courageous resistance to the administration’s mendacity and faithlessness (Russ Feingold, Scott Ritter and Seymour Hersh, to name some of the few) and that Greenwald is a bit unfair in his blanket condemnation (I blame righteous outrage and frustration).

by shep

Naomi Klein’s Shock Doctrine theory is fine as far as it goes. And the video is a powerful way of illustrating the story of the Republican betrayal of America.

But change, even fairly radical change for the worse, doesn’t always require “shock” and it can be implemented gradually, almost imperceptibly. Sometimes it even works better that way (the frog going from enjoying his warm bath to boiled appetizer, rather than jumping out of the pot).

There was no particular shock that led to the Robber Baron era and the incremental codification of corporations as “persons” (a radical constitutional subversion) and its fundamental effects on modern society over time. There was mighty hardship and insecurity, which made it easy because people were too busy to do much but focus on simple survival.

Which brings up an interesting flip side to negative motivation: isn’t our basic problem now that we are really just too fat and happy? Even though the shock of 9/11 has (mostly) worn off aren’t we too frightened of losing the relative comfort and pleasures of our middle-class lifestyles to want to seriously rock the boat? I think that is actually one of the things that motivate the hyper-rich (including our media elites), especially those who have at one time struggled, to so callously trample on everything outside their tribe merely to increase their social status and already obscene wealth: they are driven by the deep-seated fear of losing their comfort and station (once you go Baccarat, you never want to go back).

(On a possibly more positive note, isn’t our current fear for our children’s future also a powerful motivating force?)

I say it’s more broadly about leadership and the unconscious need that many have to follow. FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Ford, Carter, Clinton, with all of their faults, were essentially good leaders. They (mostly) called us to our better angels, the people followed and we progressed. After all, responding to the mighty and terrifying “shocks” of the Great Depression and WWII, FDR, Truman and Eisenhower led us to create perhaps the greatest society of all time.

At the same time, Stalin and Hitler and Mussolini and Hirohito pointed the opposite way and their followers had experienced no more “shock” than the many who rejected the call to inhumanity.

Did the election of 1979 prove that “malaise” works as well as shock?

And in 2000, we were living through a decade of relative peace and incredible prosperity yet we let the Republicans steal a presidential election right before our eyes.

No, bad leaders don’t need shock us to change us for the worse. It’s just one of many human vulnerabilities, like deep-seated fear, hatred, insecurity, pride or greed, that makes it easier. If you think about it, for at least the past forty years, Republicans have used all of them to try to change us. The good news is that not everyone is susceptible to appeals to those base drives and good leaders can point the rest of us toward something worth following.

An excerpt from John Cusack's eye-opening interview with Naomi Klein:

One of the distinguishing features of the Bush administration has been its reliance on outside advisers and freelance envoys to perform key functions: James Baker, Paul Bremer, Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, Richard Perle, Bruce Jackson, and so on...

Their power stems from the fact that they used to perform key roles in government -- they are former secretaries of state, former ambassadors and former undersecretaries of defense. All have been out of government for years and, in the meantime, have set up lucrative careers in the disaster capitalism complex.

And because they are freelance government contractors, they aren't subject to the same conflict-of-interest rules as elected or appointed politicians.

The effect has been to eliminate the so-called revolving door between government and industry and allow the disaster industries to simply set up shop inside the government, using the reputations of these supposedly illustrious ex-politicians as cover.

Read the whole thing.

P.S. Yes, that John Cusack.