November 2007 Archives

The most addictive -- and surprisingly simple -- game in a long time: Chat Noir (Black Cat).

Mark Frauenfelder:

The object of this simple game is to click on the light colored dots to create a barrier that prevents the kitty from getting away. Each time you click on a dot, the kitty gets to move from one dot to another.

Sounds easy -- until you try it. Then you'll be shocked at how much time has elapsed since you sat down to begin playing it...again and again and again and again....

Boing Boing commenter:

The Flash version is OK, but the real-life version (marketed in the U.S. as "Get Your Kitty Into the Carrier to Take Him To The Vet For His Weekly Glucose Reading") is much, much more challenging, and the graphics are better.

Hee.

Wayne Barrett has published a bombshell story about how Rudy Giuliani's business contracts tie him to the man who let 9/11's mastermind escape the FBI.

It is a masterful job of investigative reporting, but it is a tremendously complex story. I have boiled it down to one picture that hopefully will allow you to get what Barrett is saying.

Click graphic to see full-sized version. Then go read the story.

Today, completely by chance, I came across a name that I hadn't heard since my childhood: Nasreddin Hoja. My father and (especially) my mother used to love to tell stories in which Hodja usually did or said something that seemed stupid or illogical, but upon closer examination turned out to be very wise in a kind of Zen, flip-absurdist, Marx Brothers way.

Nasreddin sat on a river bank when someone shouted to him from the opposite side:
- "Hey! how do I get across?"
- "You are across!" Nasreddin shouted back.

I hadn't thought about him in, oh, decades but as soon as I tripped over his name (in a profile of Dennis Kucinich of all people -- no, wait: that's actually perfect) it all came back to me.

Once, Nasreddin was invited to deliver a sermon. When he got on the pulpit, he asked "Do you know what I am going to say?" The audience replied "NO", so he announced "I have no desire to speak to people who don't even know what I will be talking about" and he left.

The people felt embarrassed and called him back again the next day. This time when he asked the same question, the people replied "YES". So Nasreddin said, "Well, since you already know what I am going to say, I won't waste any more of your time" and he left.

Now the people were really perplexed. They decided to try one more time and once again invited the Mullah to speak the following week. Once again he asked the same question - "Do you know what I am going to say?" Now the people were prepared and so half of them answered "YES" while the other half replied "NO". So Nasreddin said "The half who know what I am going to say, tell it to the other half" and he left!

According to Wikipedia:

Nasreddin (Persian ملا نصرالدین, Arabic: جحا transl.: Joĥa ,نصرالدين meaning "Victory of the Faith," Turkish Nasreddin Hoca, Bosnian Nasrudin hodža) was a satirical sufi figure who lived during the Middle Ages (around 13th century), somewhere in Greater Khorasan,[1] under the Seljuq rule. Many nations of the Near, Middle East and Central Asia claim the Nasreddin as their own, (Afghans, Iranians, Turks, and Uzbeks).

[Note: ...and apparently the Armenians as well.]

His name is spelled differently in various cultures and is often preceded or followed by titles "Hodja", "Mullah", or "Effendi" (see section "Name variants"). Nasreddin was a populist philosopher and wise man, remembered for his funny stories and anecdotes. In China he is known as Afanti, a folk hero of the Uyghurs (a Turkic people).

That's quite a heritage. Anyway, finding him after all these years was quite a treat.

Nasreddin Hoja (hoja means "teacher" in Turkish) is both crafty and naive, wise and foolish, a trickster and the butt of tricks.

Dude, he's Bugs Bunny!

"How old are you, Hoja?"

"Forty."

"But you said that two years ago when I asked."

"That's right. I always stand by my word!"

That's my story and I'm stickin to it.

In the old days, men were permitted to have more than one wife. Nasreddin Hoja himself took a second wife who was younger than the first one. One evening he came home to find them quarreling about which of them Molla loved more.

At first, Nasreddin Hoja told them he loved them both, but neither of them were satisfied with his answer. Then the older one asked, "Well, just suppose the three of us were in a boat, and it started to sink. Which of us would you try to save?"

Hoja thought for a moment, and then said to his older wife, "My dear, you know how to swim, don't you?"

OK, that's enough for now. [Pause] Oh, just one more!

One day, Nasreddin Hoja and his son went on a journey. Hoja preferred to let his son ride the donkey while he walked. Along the way, they passed some travelers.

"Look at that healthy young boy on the donkey! That's today's youth for you! They have no respect for their elders! He rides while his poor father walks!"

The words made the lad feel very ashamed, and he insisted that his father ride while he walked. So Nasreddin Hoja climbed on the donkey and the boy walked by his side. Soon they met another group.

"Well, look at that! Poor little boy has to walk while his father rides the donkey," they exclaimed.

This time, Hoja climbed onto the donkey behind his son.

Soon they met another group, who said, "Look at that poor donkey! He has to carry the weight of two people."

Hoja then told his son, "The best thing is for both of us to walk. Then no one can complain."

So they continued their journey on foot. Again they met some travelers.

"Just look at those fools. Both of them are walking under this hot sun and neither of them is riding the donkey!"

In exasperation, Hoja lifted the donkey onto his shoulders and said, "Come on, if we don't do this, it will be impossible to make people stop talking."

Ain't it the truth.

[cross posted, with a poll, at Daily Kos]

As if the world, and our place in it, wasn't volatile enough, here comes the latest update on what's happening in Russia.

From David Remnick, who was the Moscow correspondent for the WashPo and also Pulitzer Prize winning author (Lenin's Tomb: The Last Days of the Soviet Empire):

We should pay attention to what's going on in Russia for any number of reasons. First of all it's a gigantic country, with a gigantic land mass, with nuclear weapons, with enormous economic resources [an oil price nearing $100 a barrel and the high price of natural gas], its importance in geopolitical terms is fantastic — it borders on Iran and Central Asia, it borders Europe — it couldn't be more important. But our eye has been off the ball essentially for quite a long time (a) because the Cold War ended and (b) because we've been so obsessed, for obvious reasons, on South Asia and the Middle East.

Check. But how bad could it be? After all, Bush assured us that he "looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy...I was able to get a sense of his soul." We can do business with him, right?

One of Putin's great tools as a leader... is a sense of mystery. We're now in late November. and we still don't know anything about the shape of the ballot for December parliamentary elections, and we have no idea if anybody will be on the ballot against a either Putin or a Putin-handpicked candidate come March. Just have no idea...

These aren't elections and they don't bear close inspection — whether there are monitors or no monitors — they don't bear close inspection as democratic elections.

So you're saying that Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan are all peanuts compared to Russia? What exactly do you suggest we do about this?

As Americans, [in] Bush's America, we are not going to be very effective advocates, certainly not in Russia, in an era of declining American moral authority, which is one of the most unfortunate consequences of the Bush presidency...

So it is extremely easy and effective for Vladimir Putin to say, "Look, United States, don't lecture me on democracy — look at Abu Ghraib, look at Guantanamo, look at many other things" — and he can say that, by the way, with great effectiveness.

Well, OK, but we can still work with him, right? He'd cooperate with us on the war on terror, right?

Mr Putin [has] emphasised the need for all Caspian nations to prohibit the use of their territory by any outside countries for use of military force against any nation in the region - a clear reference to long-standing rumours that the US might be planning to use Azerbaijan, a former Soviet republic, as a staging ground for any possible military action against Iran.

Bottom line: at best, all top-tier presidential candidates are going to have to address Russia's place in US foreign policy plans post-Bush. At worst? A pre-election war against Iran -- indirectly involving Russia.

I picked a hell of a day to quit sniffing glue.

Does this mean John Ashcroft is having gay sex with Jim Jeffords?

A nation asks: when will it end? When. Will. It. End?

OK, the dirty hippies were right about everything.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

[cross posted at Daily Kos]

You don't think of Iowa as having any significant sort of minority population. So when Sen. Obama held a forum on urban issues at a Des Moines high school, it got my attention. He talked about what it takes for a teenager to succeed at a job (only a black candidate could make the comments about "Pookie" that Obama did). Then it got serious:

[P]eople turned silent when Annette Brown, an African-American woman, told Obama of her struggle to integrate into the community, after moving to Des Moines from Chicago.

"I come from a diverse background. I have people of every race in my family," Obama responded. "When we were at Thanksgiving, you looked around and everybody tried to figure out, how do all these people fit together? I see a lot of different perspectives.

This is so much better, and believable, than his cringe-inducing contention that being 10 years old in Indonesia uniquely qualifies him for foreign affairs.

And one of the things that I truly believe is that the vast majority of Americans want to do the right thing. They want to live together. They believe in diversity...They believe everyone is American. I truly believe that is where America wants to be."

Who else talks like this? No one. In an era where fear-mongering is the standard means to getting elected, Obama's appeal is refreshing. This is the kind of talk that attracted me to Obama in the first place.

Is it enough to win him the nomination and the election? I've said it before: if Giuliani is the nominee, race will be THE issue whether it is overt not (look for "Pookie" to reappear one way or the other). That said, I'm entertaining the idea that perhaps Obama, not Clinton, is the best Democrat to run against the Republicans.

"But here's the thing that I've said before and I'll say it again. We do have a legacy of racism in this country, and we see it in our daily lives. There's a reason why African Americans are more likely to be incarcerated. There's a reason why Hispanic Americans are more likely to be without health care and in low-wage jobs. It has to do with the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow and discrimination.

And even if people aren't discriminated against now...that legacy still persists. And one of the things that we have to do is finally acknowledge that legacy and go ahead and try to make it right. Not by calling each other by names, not by acting suspicious towards each other, but rather simply saying, let's go ahead and solve this problem in this generation, so it doesn't persist for the next generation."

The phrase "Only Nixon could go to China" floats in one's mind. I'm just saying.

In any case, America has always been about embracing the disenfranchised -- It's even inscribed on the Statue of Liberty -- and so we necessarily a pluralistic nation, too. If we are to be united, then that's where it starts. E Pluribus Unum, baby.

I like this guy.

UPDATE: ...but can he, you know, throw a punch? Richard Wolffe has some commentary.

The title of this post was the punchline of a comic strip I drew in college when I was 20. Now author William Gibson (Neuromancer, Pattern Recognition) shares what it feels like to have arrived here, in this future, from those days long ago

William Gibson:

If one had gone to talk to a publisher in 1977 with a scenario for a science-fiction novel that was in effect the scenario for the year 2007, nobody would buy anything like it. It's too complex, with too many huge sci-fi tropes: global warming; the lethal, sexually transmitted immune-system disease; the United States, attacked by crazy terrorists, invading the wrong country. Any one of these would have been more than adequate for a science-fiction novel. But if you suggested doing them all and presenting that as an imaginary future, they'd not only show you the door, they'd probably call security.

Wednesday morning, Itchy nailed another squirrel. This surprised me because I thought he (Itchy) had lost a step or two because of his, ahem, extra weight. Not so, apparently -- he still has his mojo workin.

I snatched this latest squirrel away from him before he could chew off the head and bring the remains inside (which he usually tucks under our bed for later snacking).

I've lost count over the years -- he's caught at least four squirrels that I can remember. Who knows how many he got that he left outside?

From Mark Freunenfelder:

Man as Industrial Palace was created by Fritz Kahn in 1926. A high-res scan is available from the Dream Anatomy gallery of the National Institutes of Health.

Kahn’s modernist visualization of the digestive and respiratory system as "industrial palace," really a chemical plant, was conceived in a period when the German chemical industry was the world’s most advanced.

Click image for closer view

Jed questions the proper temperature for cooking turkey stuffing.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Somewhere in one of John Rogers' posts I found a link to John Robb's blog, Global Guerillas, wherein Robb discusses the concept of open-source warfare.

There's way too much there to do it justice in a single (or multiple) short posts, but I think Robb nails it in one specific post when he talks about perpetual war and how it enables and strengthens a regime. That's nothing new. What stopped me and made me think was how that it happening here in the US.

A sample:

The privatization of conflict. This is likely the critical factor that makes perpetual warfare possible. For all intents and purposes, the US isn't at war. The use of a professional military in combination with corporate partners has pushed warfare to the margins of political/social life. A war's initiation and continuation is now merely a function of our willingness/ability to finance it. Further, since privatization mutes moral opposition to war (i.e. "our son isn't forced to go to war to die") the real damage at the ballot box is more likely to impact those that wish to end its financing. To wit: every major presidential candidate in the field today now gives his/her full support to the continuation of these wars.

Remember: the optimist's view of Iraq envisions 80-100 thousand troops there for 30 years.

The guy is very perceptive and he is changing the way I look at war and politics -- and this campaign for president.

by shep

Here you can watch one of the cranky white guys from CNN explaining how Hillary Clinton refused to give straight answers on driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, Social Security and the release of presidential records in that now infamous Democratic debate.

Besides being completely full of it himself when Jack Cafferty calls it “baloney” that Clinton herself can’t release presidential records and asking what “fiscal responsibility” means, the greatest stupidity and moral crime committed by our entire idiot press corps about that debate has to be the one that Clinton “flip-flopped” on the driver’s license issue.

Here’s Russert’s original “gotcha” question:

Russert: Senator Clinton, Governor of New York Eliot Spitzer has proposed giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. He told the Nashua, New Hampshire, Editorial Board it makes a lot of sense.

Why does it make a lot of sense to give an illegal immigrant a driver's license?

And here’s Clinton’s answer as to why it makes sense:

Clinton: Well, what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform. We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability.

So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum. I believe we need to get back to comprehensive immigration reform because no state, no matter how well intentioned, can fill this gap. There needs to be federal action on immigration reform.

And here’s Russert’s flip-flop:

Russert: Does anyone here believe an illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license?

(Unknown): Believe what?

Russert: An illegal immigrant should not have a driver's license.

Now Russert’s question isn’t why Spitzer’s plan “makes sense,” it is now, one Clinton answer later, who thinks illegal immigrants should not be given a driver’s license.

So Chris Dodd answers that question in the negative and Clinton attempts to answer the new question thusly:

Clinton: Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do...

Edwards then opportunistically claims that Clinton said two different things – which she did in response to Russert’s two different questions – and the rest is beltway journalistic malpractice.

(The gotcha nature of the original question is obvious to anyone who’s ever taken a first-year philosophy class: “tell me why it might make sense to kill a criminal” or “write an essay on why it might make sense to start a war with a militarily inferior, resource-rich country.” And Punkin' Head is apparently somewhat ashamed of it since he edited it out of this week’s MTP review of Clinton’s “straight answer(s)” to two different questions).

The Village lurves its empty political narratives – i.e., “the calculating politician” (no, seriously) – because 1) college students who choose journalism aren’t usually the brightest crayons in the box and 2) our beltway press are really a bunch of lazy, pampered know-nothings who, if they couldn’t constantly lean on these mindless narratives, would actually have think of something clever to say or report, you know, the news (as our idiot-in-chief might say: that journalism stuff is hard work). Most maddeningly, they continue to pretend that they themselves aren’t affecting and corrupting the process by creating these narratives and with their laziness, inanity and adolescent-style assaults on politicians, particularly Democrats.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

• Sounds like McCain thinks the Secret Service causes more problems that it solves -- and he'd eliminate much of it if he becomes president. "Why do I need it?" says he. I'll tell you why: because the office is bigger than you, you macho s*@thead.

• John Edwards confuses going on offense with going on the attack. Reed Hundt, on the other hand, knows exactly what the difference is.

• Optimist's view of Iraq: US keeps 80,000-100,000 troops in country for the next twenty to thirty years. Meanwhile when the Brits left Basra, violence dropped by 90%. Draw your own conclusions.

• Rove on How To Beat Hillary. Ara on How To Beat Any Republican Who Wants To Beat Hillary (or any other Dem).

• In the context of today's writers' strike, screenwriter John Rogers (aka Kung Fu Monkey) recalls his essay wherein he draws a brilliant parallel between 4th generation warfare and 4th generation media. The guy is good -- read today's Re-arranging the Deckchairs as well as yesteryear's 4th Generation Media.

"Aliens Conquer The Earth And Ban Computers! Wait...No writers. We'll have to make that a reality show."

[cross posted at Kos...UPDATE: Recommended!]

I would have guessed Malkin, but that's why I don't get the big bucks.

From the Post:

Newsweek has signed the president's former deputy chief of staff as a commentator who will turn out several columns on the 2008 campaign through inauguration day. The move is not likely to prove popular among liberals who believe the mainstream media have been too soft on the Bush administration.

Batten down the hatches.

"We want to give readers a feel for what it's like to be on the inside," says Newsweek Editor Jon Meacham. "Our readers are sophisticated enough to know that what they get from Karl has to be judged in the context of who Karl is...Readers will have to decide if he's simply an apologist."

Oh I think we already know the answer to that.

Newsweek (which is owned by The Washington Post Co.) will announce tomorrow that it is granting regular space to both Rove and Markos Moulitsas, the liberal firebrand who founded the Web site Daily Kos.

Times:

“Edwards and Obama are still waltzing around [Clinton] rather than hitting on doubts about her that would really resonate with voters,” said Ross K. Baker, a professor of political science at Rutgers University.

Gosh, I don't know: Edwards has been pretty clear. He's saying she talks out of both sides of her mouth at the same time. Not an original charge, nor one that hasn't been leveled at any given candidate at any time (Edwards included).

“One absolutely devastating accusation that could resonate is that she is gullible — she bought into two false story lines, one from her husband about Monica Lewinsky and one from President Bush about Iraq,” Mr. Baker added.

Hillary gullible? Now THAT's an interesting notion. All the more so because I could see Edwards doing that. I could also see Giuliani doing it. Not sure about the others.

Something else to consider: how would the public react?

Many have said if she can't take the heat now, wait til the Republicans have at her. They have a point. Could Clinton take that punch and still remain standing? Or would she be down for the count?

My guess is that she's the toughest and most durable fighter the Dems have -- in fact it might be her one greatest redeeming characteristic. Edwards? Cheney already kicked his ass once. Obama? Not sure he can throw a punch. But Clinton -- a real street fighter. I'm not talking about that nonsense of "fighting for the people against the powerful." That's Bob Shrum talking and we can see where that got him.

I'm talking about the will to win no matter what. Wanting to win more than your opponent and doing whatever it takes to take him down. I see that in Clinton. The others -- not so much.

P.S. Another thing to consider: the bar has been placed such that, unless Hillary is taken out on a stretcher, she wiins the night.

MSNBC:

[S]ome U.S. Army officers now talk more sympathetically about former insurgents than they do about their ostensible allies in the Shiite-led central government. "It is painful, very painful," dealing with the obstructionism of Iraqi officials, said Army Lt. Col. Mark Fetter.

I'm hearing several things in that statement:

1. The surge failed to produce results as advertised.
   
2. The US Army did what it was told -- don't blame them for this mess.
   
3. The politicians -- Iraqi, US, as usual -- screwed this thing up.

If victory was ever in the cards, it was going to be dealt out by a democratic Iraqi government that was on our side. That isn't going to happen now.

Why are we even still there?

by shep

Listen very carefully to what this woman is saying.

Or get punked by Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan, I’m not really sure I give a shit anymore.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

• Breaking News: "Musharraf Expects To Quit As Army Chief By End of Month." Riiiiiiight. And Larry Craig expects to leave the US Senate by the end of October.

• When Brian Williams guest-hosted on SNL a couple of weeks ago, it went a long way in changing my opinion of him. But this softball interview with Rudy Giuliani reminds me again why I didn't like him in the first place.

• Speaking of Williams, apparently his ratings are up post-SNL. Then again, so are Katie Couric's and she wasn't even on the show.

• Judith Regan is suing News Corp. over her firing in the OJ book affair. She's claiming (among other things) that Murdoch tried to ruin her reputation to protect Rudy Giuliani's. You know -- she was boffing Bernie Kerik and they were afraid she'd blab about it. Sounds to me like they all -- Murdoch, Giuliani, Kerik, Regan -- deserve each other.

• Bush's plan for the economy: prop it up with matchsticks and duct tape until January 20, 2009. Then blame the new president for ruining it.

• James Carville compares Don Imus to Bill Clinton.

• A Wiki site has leaked the Gitmo Camp Delta manual online. Or at least, ahem, that's what they tell me.

• Silence of the Lambs: Baghdad, post-surge. [Note: for those of you who didn't read the novel, the reference is to the silence that was heard after the lambs had been slaughtered; it haunted the novel's protagonist.]

• Chris Bowers: "If Obama wins Iowa and New Hampshire, he takes the nomination." Maybe yes, maybe no. One thing for sure -- of all the top tier Dems, he has shown the most upward momentum over the past 30 days or so. Even the prediction markets are starting to reflect that. I just wish he had more of Jack Kennedy in him and less of Adlai Stevenson.

• Matt Stoller asks whether the negative attacks on Clinton are working. Short answer: maybe.

• Got to know when to fold 'em: Apparently, Gov. Spitzer has decided to abandon a plan to issue New York driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

The Sunday talk shows have a lot to say about Giuliani's indicted crony, Bernie Kerik.

by shep

John Rogers:

This is where I'm always amused at libertarians, because they so love markets but never seem to understand how business actually works. If you, my fine libertarian friend, decide to forego the union and negotiate your own contract vis a vis residuals (or pretty much anything else), you will find that unless you are one of the maybe eight out of 12,0000 most famous and profitable writers in Hollywood, you will get exactly the same deal from each studio, or slightly worse. Because what possible motivation would they have to share their profits, relative to each of the other five competitors? That's just common sense.

Rogers is obviously talking about the writers’ strike – cruise the whole blog if you want a great writer’s perspective on the issues.

But he also make a great point about Iibertarian “free-market” types: they have no idea how the marketplace really works, suffering mainly from the delusion that the market is always a force for competition and good (Microsoft, Enron and Halliburton, they never explain). Rogers uses a great Chris Rock joke as a metaphor for the amoral, predatory nature of business:

One of my favorite jokes, just a lovely piece of writing, is Chris Rock's bit about the time one of Siegfried and Roy's tigers mauled Roy.

"Everybody's mad at the tiger. 'That tiger went crazy!' That tiger didn't go crazy ... that tiger went tiger."

This is how I feel about corporations in general, extended to the Studios in particular. There are those who rail at the AMPTP for being profit-maximizing heartless, soul-less bastards as if that were a bad thing. It's not.

A corporation's job is to make money, and if necessary fuck you in the process. Just like a tiger's job is to eat, and if necessary kill you in the process. I'm okay with that. I like capitalism. A lot. I like tigers. A lot. That doesn't mean I trust corporations not to try to screw me and everyone next to me when negotiating. Nor would I trust a tiger not to attack me in the wild. Nor am I personally offended when they try.

Exactly. It’s just business. But that is why you need regulatory government and institutions like unions to make it a fair fight. You alone, against the tiger, will soon be jungle fertilizer, ten times out of ten.

And the problem stretches the tiger analogy when you look at the other worst consequence of unregulated “free-markets”: pretty soon the biggest, baddest, most ruthless tigers start eating their own until there are only a few left that can survive (see Microsoft, Enron and Halliburton). In other words, competition – the supposed source of predictably “good” market outcomes - gets gobbled up by the market itself if left to its own amoral, greed and power-based nature.

You’d think that these facts would be self-evident, looking at what has actually transpired in marketplaces and societies throughout history, relative to the strength of existing trade unions and other worker and consumer-based institutions and (very occasionally) liberal, democratic government. But that’s reality-based thinking and, I’m sure, not nearly as satisfying as a simplistic, comforting worldview about business, government and human nature gleaned from a work of bad fiction.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Digby:

[The traditional media] never worried much about the threat to democracy caused by the Bush dynasty when Junior ran after his (failed) father had been either vice president or president for 12 years and are only noticing the dire consequences of such things since a Democratic dynasty threatens, these establishment pundits only seem to find partisanship distasteful when it's being waged by liberals.

When conservatives do it, it's called "hardball politics" and they all admire them for sticking to their principles and representing their constituents. In fact, when they do it it's assumed they represent the entire country even though they clearly don't.

...and again, Digby:

Capitol Hill hasn't become the laughing stock of the nation because of its partisanship. It's become the laughing stock of the nation because the Republicans have spent the last seven years diagnosing brain injuries from the floor of the senate, molesting high school boys, stealing the country blind and starting wars for no good reason (all of which the Republicans seemed to "get done" very handily.) In the eight years before that they spent the entire time obsessing about phony scandals and semen stains. If we don't laugh we'll never stop crying about what they've done to our country.

by shep

Eugene Robinson:

"It's official: Bush Derangement Syndrome is now a full-blown epidemic. George W. Bush apparently has reduced more of his fellow citizens to frustrated, sputtering rage than any president since opinion polling began, with the possible exception of Richard Nixon. . .”

Mitch McConnell:

"The war is winding down. Next year's election is going to be about this Congress and what it failed to do"

Michael Crowley:

"I wonder whether the Democrats have been preparing for that possibility -- and what their contingency plans are if the Iraq debate tacks substantially back the GOP's way."

Karl Rove:

"The Democratic victory in 2006 was narrow. They won the House by 85,961 votes out of over 80 million cast and the Senate by a mere 3,562 out of over 62 million cast. A party that wins control by that narrow margin can quickly see its fortunes reversed when it fails to act responsibly, fails to fulfill its promises, and fails to lead.”

"People in the past who have been on the nutty fringe of political life, who were more or less voiceless, have now been given an inexpensive and easily accessible soapbox, a blog.”

And that’s one reason you’re out of the White House and forced to peddle your delusions on the permanently deranged pages of the Wall Street Journal’s op-ed. That is, after helping to create a permanent Republican minority.

Lets’ all pray for a slow and painful recovery.

H/T Dan Froomkin

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

At the top of the news this morning: witnesses allege that Hillary Clinton failed to tip a waitress in Iowa recently. The Clinton campaign disputes that.

In other news, Bernie Kerik, former police commissioner of New York City, former nominee to head the Department of Homeland Security, and protege and former business partner of Rudy Giuliani, was indicted today.

by shep

They hate us for our Prada:

The FBI confirmed it has issued an "intelligence information report" warning of possible Al Qaeda attacks on Los Angeles and Chicago shopping malls over the holiday season.
The warning states Al Qaeda has been planning the attack for the past two years with the intension to disrupt the U.S. economy...

Lightweights.

Let’s leave it to the Republicans and their corporate masters; the real experts at “creative destruction”:

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, warning that higher inflation and weaker economic growth could be in store, told Congress Thursday that the central bank is keeping a close eye on the subprime mortgage crisis and recent spike in oil prices.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

You guys, yeah the islamofascistjihadicaliphatists in the high mountain caves of Pakistan, you can just relax – smoke it if you’ve got it. You are no match for our CEOs and our MBA president.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

by Mark Adams
Cross Posted at Dispassionate Liberal and KOS-posted too.

It would seem that Radar online is less than impressed with Keith Olbermann's Special Comment Tuesday where he minced no words in accusing President Bush of being a criminal who condoned torture due to the story of former Acting Deputy Attorney General Dan Levin, who was fired after he subjected himself to waterboarding and declared it to be "torture."

The memo Levin wrote is here.

This thing was in response to a directive from POTUS that superseded Gonzo's ridiculous edict that asserted torture was only something that caused "severe" pain which was limited to "excruciating and agonizing" or equivalent to the same pain felt "serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death."

…cows.

Morons.

Over the past month, and despite some ups and downs, the prediction market Intrade.com is showing the following:

• Clinton, up (and still the overall market leader)
  
• Edwards, down (a nickel stock)
  
• Obama, down
  
• Giuliani, up (still the Republican market leader)
  
• Romney, up
  
• Thompson, down (crashing into nickel stock territory)
  
• McCain, up (another nickel stock)

If you're wondering how Clinton's "debate stumble" and/or the others holding her feet to the fire is affecting her numbers, well, the results are mixed. While many of the polls show a decline in her support, a nearly-equal number of polls show nothing of the sort. Regardless, her lead is still in the double digits.

Chris Bowers has a round up and offers an excellent analysis as well:

I imagine most people reading this blog are either happy that Clinton is somewhat down, or at least not disappointed. However, they should be careful what they wish for.

In this case, what appears to be a Clinton drop in the polls was largely fueled by the same media machine that, most of the time, happily reinforces Republican narratives as conventional wisdom. The lesson here, I think, is to remember that the corporate, established media is still very good at creating national convention wisdom as they see fit.

While in this case that conventional wisdom might make many people in the netroots happy, most of the time it won't. It is still a powerful institution that Republicans and conservatives are better able to control than Democrats and progressives, and we shouldn't forget that.

After the fact re-branding of debates remains of the biggest reasons George Bush is President instead of Al Gore, for example. Their after the fact coverage of Howard Dean's concession speech in Iowa, or General Petraeus's rosy portrayal of Iraq are even more gratuitous examples.

Most of the time, it feels as though the conventional wisdom machine works against us, and even in instances where we might enjoy the conventional wisdom that is being created (and I admit that I enjoy it simply because a blowout campaign is a boring campaign), we shouldn't forget that.

Please Mr. Musharraf, could you please get back to helping me spread my “freedom agenda”? Your check is in the mail.

(Oh, and Mr. Erdogan, I sure would appreciate it if you didn’t invade Iraq. Pretty please.

Bill Maher:

[T]he days when a shop girl in the big city could support herself working a full 40-hour week, or a family of four could live off a single blue-collar breadwinner, are as bygone a fantasy as malt shops or heterosexual wizards. If you're living hand-to-mouth, and still buying into the con that the big threats to America are socialized medicine, Mexican immigrants and tax increases, then you're not being kept down by the rich. You're being kept down by you.

In America, it's not the haves and have-nots. It's the haves and the been-hads. If you, the citizen, deliberately vote for someone who won't give you health care over someone you will, you need to have your head examined. Except you can't afford to have your head examined.

Barring a surprise consolidation of Christian evangelicals behind Mike Huckabee, it looks now like Rudy Giuliani will probably get the Republican nomination. That said, if you're a Democrat, how do you fight this guy?

I think Josh Marshall takes an interesting approach -- mockery and ridicule:

So far Rudy Giuliani has told us he was a 9/11 recovery worker, an expert on torture and 'enhanced interrogation' techniques from his days as US Attorney and now commander-in-chief of New York City. In Tuesday's episode of TPMtv, we ask the question ... Rudy Giuliani, Grade School Fibber or World Class Megalomaniac? You watch & decide...

by shep

I’m convinced that the only way anyone is going to beat Hillary to the Democratic nomination and lock up the general election is through a real-deal, fire-breathing appeal to populism. John Edwards has the closest thing going but, so far, he lacks a cohesive frame and focus (besides being too young and pretty for the current state of nervousness in the electorate).

The trouble is, the only true populist message is an anti-corporate one (why Lou Dobbs comes off as a racist xenophobe rather than a true populist) and no one in the rarified world of national politics would ever consider such a thing. The idea is so antithetical to corporate media, corporate lobbyists, corporate political consultants and corporate-financed politicians that they simply can’t see the utility, even the necessity, of it.

Nevertheless, on every major domestic crisis from healthcare to energy policy, it is the parochial (and, in many cases, short-term and ultimately unwise) desires of corporations and the outsized influence they have on US policy that stands directly in the path of progress. And anti-corporatism is the only way I can see for Democrats to get out in front of the immigration debate (without pandering to racists themselves), which will be the key to the ever-critical independent voter in ‘08.

Simply put, on every issue that Americans care about, there is a corporate interest that can be shown to be part of the problem. An anti-corporatism message would immediately rally the Democratic base, which is deeply suspicious of Clinton’s corporatist bona fides. And used to frame Iraq (Haliburton and Blackwater), illegal immigration (Tyson and Tropicana), healthcare (Blue Cross), Katrina (Bechtel) global warming (Exxon and Conoco), there is position to be taken on the side of the interests of middle and working class people against unsympathetic, predatory corporate entities.

It really is a big part of the Great Village Disconnect that none can utter the truth that almost everyone understands: our world is being raped and pillaged by corporate greed and the past Republican-run government (aided and abetted by corporatist Democrats) has all but held the down victims (think bankruptcy bill) while industry applied the lube (consumption on credit). But there is simply no way to really run against Republican corruption and malfeasance without pointing to the fact that they are doing the exact bidding of their corporate masters (the fact that Democrats share some of those same bosses partly explains their resistance to do so).

But it really shouldn’t be so hard. The argument can be made in the framework of reinvigorating government’s role as protector of the public interest without bashing business generally, just corporate excess and corruption of government. Corporations are good for the world; they are the engine of technical and economic progress, but they should not be writing the public policy of the United States of America. Dick Cheney’s “Energy Task Force” could be the poster child for the problem, if the people are ever allowed to see what their elected Vice President did in their name.

Public-interest vs. corporate-interest populism opens the door to every key Democratic policy approach to restore this country: healthcare reform, economic reform, energy policy, campaign finance reform, media ownership, even war policy (and it moves Democrats outside the simple Republicans vs. Democrats kabuki dance that people have long-since tuned out).

The people are angry at the fact that these problems grow, unaddressed, even as they try to change the political leadership of the country. And they have a good sense of why. I suspect that many of them, maybe without even knowing it, are just waiting for someone in the political and media establishment to simply say out loud who and what is to blame.

The fact that this cannot happen in American politics shows exactly why it needs to.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

[cross posted, with poll, at Daily Kos]

So suggests Newsweek's Fareed Zakaria. Skeptical? Hear him out:

First off, he debunks the observation that everything is on a glide path to a soft landing.

Zakaria:

This is a nation where 4.5 million people have fled their homes, ethnic cleansing has transformed whole cities and religious fanatics have imposed a theocratic rule that is often more extreme than in Iran.

In much of the country, thugs rule the streets. The police chief of Basra told the Iraqi newspaper Al-Sabah last week, "Most of Basra's ports, especially Umm Qasr, are under the control of militia gangs. The police force is incapable of executing its duties because its members report to the militias."

The central government is barely functioning. Half of the cabinet ministries are either vacant or nonfunctional.

Iraq's oil production is down this year. Sectarian divisions are, in some ways, getting worse.

No purple fingers here, folks.

On the ground, far from Bush's rhetoric of transformation, these conditions have moved American policy toward realism.

So if you thought "victory" was going to be a democratic Iraq friendly to US interests, then we lost the war.

That said, it hasn't stopped Petraeus, according to Zakaria, from seizing an opportunity to take credit for himself and his clients:

Petraeus has been willing to do what no American official has until now: accept Iraq for what it is and not what Washington wants it to be. Searching for a stable order, Petraeus has allied himself with whoever, within reason, could produce that order.

If I could, I would have added air-quotes to the words "stable order."

Petraeus has, in effect, given up hopes of Shiite leaders in Baghdad reconciling with Sunnis, and instead he's made up with them himself. The result has been that Al Qaeda in Iraq has been marginalized, Sunni leaders no longer demand an American withdrawal and the Shiites have recognized that America's support is not unconditional.

Hey, if it means fewer dead Americans, good on him. Declare victory, for all I care -- just come home, godammit.

In the Shiite south, U.S. policy has abandoned the goal of an impartial government and has picked a side: Abdul Aziz al-Hakim's Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), which holds sway over most local governments in the region.

I have a feeling we'll regret this someday, but ... whatever.

Petraeus has even been somewhat accommodating of the Sadrists. In Baghdad, U.S. forces now primarily target "rogue" Mahdi Army militants. The more maintsream Sadrists have been tacitly allowed to operate in several Shiite areas.

"Let Freedom Reign?" Nuh-uh. This is us pointing a gun at everyone as we slowly back out of the room.

Bottom line: Hundreds of billions flushed down a hole, tens of thousands dead and wounded -- and the same people who got us into it are still in power...ready to do it again in Iran.

As for Iraq being an issue in the fall of '08, Zakaria suggests that you not bet on it:

In the new NEWSWEEK Poll, the economy now tops Iraq as the issue that voters say will most influence their choice for president, 22 percent to 19 percent. For two years, Iraq dominated these kinds of surveys. Only a month ago, in a CBS News poll, 28 percent of respondents wanted Iraq to be the campaign's most-discussed issue, while the economy came in second at 16 percent. One can't make too much of one poll, but other evidence also suggests that the gap seems to be closing.

It's the economy, stupid!

P.S. Of course, he doesn't mention the fallout if the US is at war with Iran 6 months from now. If that happens it is not going to be good for the Dems -- or anyone else for that matter.

You know it's coming. Will we be ready -- whoever we nominate?

[cross posted at Daily Kos]

Hunter complains that the '08 election reveals that "America is definitely devolving into a contested monarchy and [worse yet] we like it that way." He also complains that Sen. Clinton (a member of the royal family, like Bush) is too corporatist, too conservative, too much an establishment candidate.

Name the top five Democrats to actively fight against the excesses -- no, the abominations -- of Bush rule: unconstitutional violations of law, the 'defining down' of torture, criminal acts by members of the administration, corporate handouts on a staggering scale. Name the top ten Democrats. The top twenty? Is Clinton (or Obama, for that matter) anywhere in that top list?

I guess Hunter is talking about John Edwards? Chris Dodd? Your guess is literally as good as mine.

In contrast, Clinton has played the far more conventional establishment game, by the establishment rules -- while other Democrats have put their reputations on the line on various issues they have passion for, Clinton has carefully cultivated behind-the-scenes, institutional power, and avoided potentially damaging fights about the big-picture issues that face the nation. Very smart, yes. But not progressive, and certainly not courageous.

Courage. Really, Hunter? In a politician? You also say that the most progressive candidate should be the nominee. Courage and progressive values: you're describing Teddy Roosevelt running on the Bull Moose platform. How many of them is walking the earth these days? And -- newsflash! -- Roosevelt lost that election because he split the Republican vote and gave the presidency to Woodrow Wilson.

I'm thinking Hunter probably likes John Edwards. After all, he's running an anti-poverty campaign. But it will take more than that to win him the nomination. Same goes for the others that Hunter might be thinking of.

Hunter apparently doesn't care for Obama; but I have a feeling Obama is speaking for more than a couple of "courageous progressives" (translation: "trailing candidates") when he says this::

Obama...described Clinton as a skilled politician running a textbook campaign but said the textbook itself is badly flawed and skewed against ordinary Americans. "It's a textbook that's all about winning elections but says nothing about how to bring the country together to solve problems," he said.

I like Obama, but that's what a loser says.

Perhaps you see where I'm going here. You don't get the nomination simply because you're "right on the issues." You get the nomination because you defeat your opponent(s). Bobby Kennedy -- who was right on the issues -- knew that.

So what if there are five -- or fifty -- Democrats who are right on the issues (and Clinton isn't among them). The fact still remains that any single one of them has to win before they get to use the levers of power. Is Hunter suggesting that certain candidates should be granted the nomination because they are "right on the issues?" Is he suggesting that certain candidates should be eliminated because they aren't?

It is going to take more than progressive values and courage to defeat Rudy Giuliani.

As for a "contested monarchy," we wouldn't be having this conversation if SCOTUS hadn't stuck its nose where it didn't belong.

If you follow college football at all you know that LSU vs. Alabama is always a great game. This year is no exception -- not the least of which is due to the defection of head coach Nick Saban from the Tigers to the Crimson Tide (with a short stay in Miami). To say he's a controversial figure is putting it mildly.

So feelings are high in Baton Rouge, as these Halloween decorations from earlier in the week would indicate.

UPDATE: 'Bama fumbles late, LSU recovers, scores with a minute to go, and hangs on to win 41-34. You cannot be faint of heart watching this year's Tigers team.

Polls (and trading markets) are showing that Tuesday's debate didn't hurt Clinton; in fact she might have gained some ground. And as for her playing the gender card? Last I looked, every candidate plays the gender card -- whether it's Bush in his codpiece, or Kerry "reporting for duty." Even the fortunate candidate who has overt sex appeal is playing the gender card. Anyone who thinks otherwise (including that sexy candidate) is being disingenuous.

I liked that Clinton refused to be shoe-horned into the Republican frame of "decisiveness vs. nuance:"

"I will continue to say what I believe," Clinton said. "And sometimes it may not be as artfully presented as I would wish, but I think some of the challenges facing our country and some of the difficult issues we have to grapple with are not so easily answered in a 15-second hand-raise or sound bite."

Edwards, who is drifting dangerously close to Rick Lazio territory -- and, in a deja vu moment, even being aided by Tim Russert, no less -- had the wrong response IMHO:

Edwards, scoffed Friday: "I have a really simple rule: If you get asked a yes or no question, you don't give a yes and no answer."

This is one of those cases where being a trial lawyer may actually hurt -- after all, Clinton isn't in the witness box and I think people sense that Edwards is coming off a bit harsh.

IJS.

by shep

Greg Sargent talks about Paul Krugman’s recent call out of the press to mention the fact that Rudy Giuliani has a bad habit of lying dissembling and wonders why the press seems so reluctant to do so when it is always oh so ready to trot out the latest GOP smear of Democrats:

Indeed. As this blog has been noting regularly, in the case of Dem candidates, your pundits will cheerfully springboard off the most trivial of anecdotes -- and in some cases, things that never happened at all -- to reach sweeping judgments about Dems' character deficits. But when it comes to Republican candidates, there is, with a few exceptions, a deep-seated reluctance to doing something so crude and impolite. This enormous double standard has been plainly obvious for years and years now. Yet you'd be hard-pressed to get anyone in the media to admit this. The denial about it runs too deep.

These days, it’s rare to hear a Republican open his mouth and not have a lie come tumbling out. For a typical Bush speech, I have to take off my shoes to count all of the lies, mischaracterizations and obfuscations (come on, we all have to find some way to get through a Bush speech and I figure this one beats drinking rat poison).

So what is it, MSM? Can you no longer discern the truth from an outright falsehood? Do you lurve you some big strong daddy Republicans? Do you just hate Democrats? Has this hypocrisy gone on so long and been so horrifically tragic for the nation that you can’t face your own duplicity and responsibility?

Do tell.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Every time this guy opens his mouth, it sounds like fingernails on a blackboard:

President Bush, seeking to salvage the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general, on Thursday defended the former judge’s refusal to say whether he considers waterboarding as illegal torture.

Bush said it was unfair to ask Mukasey about interrogation techniques on which he has not been briefed. “He doesn’t know whether we use that technique or not,” the president told a group of reporters invited into the Oval Office.

With all due respect, that wasn't the question. The question was, "Do you consider waterboarding to be torture?" Note to MSNBC: "Illegal torture" is a redundant term. Torture is illegal. Period.

Further, Bush said, “It doesn’t make any sense to tell the enemy whether we use those techniques or not.”

That also wasn't the question.

Repeat after me: torture is illegal. If waterboarding is torture, then waterboarding is illegal. Which means the President is a war criminal because the CIA has already admitted they've been using it all along. That's why everyone is on pins and needles.

It has nothing to do with what anyone "tells the enemy."