Patrick Pummeled In Wednesday Wingnuttia

Wow, check out this joke of a letter that appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times this morning…

In a recent interview with the Courier Times, Bucks County Congressman Patrick Murphy speaks proudly of his accomplish- ments during the past year. If only long hours and self promotion equaled accomplishment.

The approval ratings for Congress are at an all-time low, mostly the result of Nancy Pelosi's leadership in the House. Murphy was useful initially in Pelosi's anti-war agenda but the Democrats have failed miserably with the execution of their strategy, of which Murphy was an important component. Sixty attempts to force troop withdrawals or de-fund the war resulted in failure.

Meanwhile, the Democrat-led Congress conducted some 400 partisan hearings or investigations as part of their real payback agenda to Republicans and President Bush.

Murphy can, however, claim distinction for being near the top of the list of freshman Democrats requesting and distributing special interest money or earmarks, according to USA Today. He'll need that influence in the next election cycle when he's the incumbent, not the first-time challenger. As an incumbent he'll need a record of achievement to run on. Unfortunately for Murphy, there is none.

Austin Thornton Jr.
Middletown

Oh really?

Let’s see, just the other day, Patrick was praised by Gene Karpinski of the League of Conservation Voters for supporting the recently-passed Energy Bill (here), he also co-sponsored the Decent Working Conditions and Fair Competition Act, which will prevent Americans from losing their jobs because their employers can't compete with cheaply made sweatshop goods (here), he also worked with Bensalem, PA solicitor Joseph Pizzo in trying to pass the Clean Railroads Act which would close a long-existing loophole in federal law that “(allows) rail companies to run roughshod over state and local laws and the will of a community” (in this case regarding the issue of trash disposal - here), he has also sought input from Republicans on issues that are vital to our district (including former State Senator Joe Conti – here)…am I going too fast for you, Thornton Jr., or did you go to college?

And of course, it’s Patrick’s fault as we know that he hasn’t been able to rein in President Nightmare and his atrocity in Iraq (a pox on the “Democrat” party leadership, I’ll admit, but the Repugs haven’t budged one inch while stories like this have appeared one after another after another after another).

Oh, and the earmarks – here’s more information on how Patrick will supposedly be able to line his pocket according to Thornton Jr. I’m sure our 8th district rep will make himself rich beyond his dreams securing funding for Lower Makefield and Bristol, PA police, at-risk youth assistance, defense against bioterror, flood plain management, sewer infrastructure in Yardley, medical equipment for St. Luke and St. Mary's hospitals, the I-95/Turnpike connector in Bensalem, PA, and the James A. Michener museum in Doylestown, PA.

It’s almost too damn funny for words.

I’ll tell you what, Thornton Jr. – instead of composing such bilious garbage, why don’t you instead write to your Repug party poobahs in these parts and ask them who’s going to run against Patrick this fall. If he’s done so badly, then how come none of the names mentioned here and elsewhere (including Gene DiGirolamo and Mikey himself – hell, this is a wide-open opportunity for Andy Warren to show his true colors once and for all) have committed?

And as always, to learn more, click here.

A Question For Mike Huckabee

This story tells us the following…

A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit by journalists seeking to open executions to more scrutiny, saying there was no guaranteed right to see the whole process, including the strapping-down of the condemned inmate and the insertion of needles.

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Webber Wright rejected the journalists' argument the public had a First Amendment right to see every step of an execution in Arkansas.

In her ruling issued Monday, Wright also noted that executions have “moved from the public square to inside prison walls,” an area where the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled reporters have no special right to access.

…

A case before the U.S. Supreme Court focuses on a three-drug cocktail used by 37 states, claiming the condemned could suffer intense pain without being able to cry out. That pending case in effect stopped executions in Arkansas and other states until a ruling by justices.

If I could, I would ask Huckabee whether or not he thought this was a fair ruling (as I’ve said before, I don’t have a problem with the existence of the death penalty, but I do have a problem with its application).

I haven’t found any comment from Huckabee on this case yet, but I think we can assume some of what he may think about this based on this information, which states in part…

...in 1997, on the eve of a triple execution in Arkansas, Huckabee was asked on a radio call call-in show about his position on the death penalty. Huckabee responded, "Interestingly enough, if there was ever an occasion for someone to have argued against the death penalty, I think Jesus could have done so on the cross and said, 'This is an unjust punishment and I deserve clemency.' " But since he didn't ask for clemency, Huckabee's argument follows, the death penalty is just fine.

Is this guy a “snake oil salesman,” or what?

Easy to joke about death but not so easy to look the matter in the eye when someone else’s life is on the line, is it, Governor?

Update 1/10/08: And let's not forget that Huckabee considers Scalia his "own personal hero on the (Supreme Court)" (here), so I suppose this isn't so surprising.

"Channelling" Martin And Roberts On “A La Carte” Cable

(Note: I’m posting about this partly because there is so much stupid pundit blathering about New Hampshire last night that I’m trying to do something different – and yes, I’ll admit that it was bad news for John Edwards, though we have a ways to go here.)

The Philadelphia Inquirer notes here that Comcast CEO Brian Roberts gave the keynote address at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas yesterday, with Roberts using the opportunity to plug “tru2way,” the company’s “new technology to allow electronics manufacturers to develop interactive devices that work on its 25-million-subscriber cable network,” according to the story.

However, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, while participating in a panel discussion said that “tru2way” was “a good start, but not the final solution.”

Industry analysts who know more about this stuff than I do think that Roberts and Martin aren’t exactly buds these days because of Roberts’ opposition to “a la carte” cable (supported by Martin) which basically means that cable subscribers would pay for each channel and (so the thinking goes) lower cable TV rates.

Part of what’s difficult for me concerning this story is that it involves two really bad apples as far as I’m concerned; this related New York Times story (referenced in the Inquirer) notes that Martin’s FCC is investigating complaints of Comcast’s alleged interference with online file sharing (a ruling against Comcast would help bolster Net Neutrality as an abiding principle of Internet activity – the FCC has broadly supported it, but that support hasn’t been tested yet).

And as far as Martin is concerned, he narrowly missed being named Dregs Of The Year by yours truly for 2007 (for whatever that’s worth – not much, I’ll admit…many reasons, notably this one).

Martin touts “a la carte” cable as a means to lower subscriber rates, but as noted here…

According to the FCC, the average family only watches seventeen channels. If this describes your family, then there is a chance that you could save money with a la carte programming. However, Booz Allen Hamilton, an industry consultant, says that the FCC overestimated the average cost per cable channel by as much as fifty percent. This so-called error really makes the difference in whether the average family would save money on pay-per-channel programming or not.

(Martin) is the commission's strongest supporter of the change. His primary concern seems to be that cable companies have been raising their rates consistently over the last few years. In the last five years, for example, the average family's television spending increased by 35.7 percent. Martin explains that the FCC is getting involved to try and persuade cable companies to better meat (sic) consumer demands.

The cable operators, as you might expect, don’t think so…

…(they) say full channel choice will result in extra costs for customers, who already pay an average of $40 each month for "extended basic cable" which usually includes between 70 and 80 channels.

"Under an a la carte plan, that same $40 would probably result in a handful of channels, fewer than 10," says Brian Dietz, spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, an industry trade group in Washington. The existing "bundle" plans provide "the best value and widest variety of programming for the customer," he says.

I very reluctantly have to go along with the cable operators here, partly because of this (also noted in the CS Monitor story)…

…Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D) of California, warned in a newspaper column last month that "the cable industry's most exciting new talent - scores of programs for Latinos, African-Americans, women and others - would be the first casualties" of an a la carte system because they wouldn't be able to reach enough viewers to survive.

Kevin Martin has one goal and one goal only as FCC chairman, and that is to consolidate the corporate voice at the expense of all others (yet another example of the “values voters” getting played by the Repugs here, since some of their “Bible beaters” of choice could end up getting cut out also). He could care less about rising cable rates; he just wants to pretend he does so we all have our “bread and circuses” and remain as compliant as possible while the information we need to make informed decisions slowly grinds to a halt at the behest of Time Warner, Disney, Microsoft, and General Electric.

Concerning Comcast, though, I should note that this is a theoretical argument only for your humble narrator, since the Doomsy household switched over to Verizon FIOS a few days ago (for a better price, we get enhanced picture quality and sound on TV and much faster Internet connectivity).

And I’ll be honest; we also walked away from Comcast because they continue to give a pay check to this guy (haven’t come up with a “next step” yet, but I’ll think of something).

One more thing - was this a sweet deal for Roberts' old man, or what (update 7/3/08: To be fair, I think he restructured it later, but I'm not positive; I'll keep checking).

Really, Dana?

Let’s file this one and check back on it later, shall we?

According to this post on the ABC blog Political Radar, White House press propagandist Dana Perino communicated the following (re: the support her boss George W. Milhous Bush will provide for the Republican Party presidential nominee)…

"Once we have a named candidate," Perino adds, "You will see this president campaign for them vigorously."

(Dubya didn’t look very “vigorous” in supporting the New Hampshire primary winner here, did he?).

Putting aside the obvious grammatical problem in that sentence, I think that’s an interesting observation, particularly given the fact that the Republican Party presidential candidates have, to date, tried to put as much distance as they could between themselves and President 25 Percent Mandate (as noted here).

Well, I’ll just have to revisit this post after the Repug convention and try to hold Perino to her word (and as noted here, she’s just been so “above board” with the journos at all times, hasn’t she?).

The Repug "Reckoning" Is In Full Swing

And now, for the best political analysis I've read in a long time...from Time, the Philadelphia Inquirer - hah! - The New Yorker or "The Old Gray Lady"?

Not on your life; it would be here from Bill in Portland, Maine via The Daily Kos...

Eight years of Bush/Cheney, six years of brass-knuckled Republican rule in Congress, and a two decade assault by the in-your-face, "do as I say, not as Jesus would do" evangelical screamers have left Americans exhausted by it all. There's really nothing of substance Republicans can point to that has worked. Not in education, defense, security, energy, foreign policy, fiscal policy, infrastructure, health care, planet care, science...nuthin'. Well, okay, there was the $300 refund check we got in the summer of '01. Thanks---the Ramen noodles were tasty.

So I think we have a real shot at kicking GOP ass---up and down the ballot---big-time in ten months. I'm excited. Hopeful. Optimistic. [Insert random synonyms from thesaurus here.] Bush promised to "restore honor and integrity to the White House" and then---to put it indelicately---fucked us. He ignored the left entirely, and played the right for suckers. And since suckers hate to admit they've been duped, the Republican candidates are acting like everything's hunky dory. But it ain't, and a helluva lot more fingers are pointing at them than us.

And I'll bet he probably isn't even in the Guild (God knows he'll never get invited to the White House Correspondents Dinner and Dubya Fluffing either).

Tuesday Videos

Foo Fighters ("Times Like These")...



...and Elvis Aaron Presley would have been 73 today ("Jailhouse Rock").

Tuesday Political Stuff

Congratulations to "St. McCain"; actually, this was an easy call for the punditocracy since he won it in 2000 and hasn't appreciably changed much since then, but still, credit where it's due goes with this fitting video...



...and this is just a reminder as to why "America's Mayor" may have missed out on the Granite State fun tonight.

Tuesday Mashup (1/8)

A group called the California Nurses Association ran a full-page ad in the New York Times yesterday correctly stating that “everyone deserves Cheney care”; to learn more about the group, here’s a Daily Kos diary providing background and further information about HR 676 here, which calls for “Medicare For All” (Edwards is probably closest to supporting something like this among the candidates).

Man, how would you like to be Mark Penn these days?

I mean, the guy not only gets “taken to the woodshed” by Kagro X here for spinning poll results decidedly giving an advantage to Barack Obama (though, as Glenn Greenwald noted earlier, “trend” stats favor John Edwards – sorry for dwelling on numbers like this, an easy trap to fall into), but his “union-busting” division at mega-PR firm Burson-Marsteller (which he heads, of course) gets exposed for all the world to see by Mark Schmitt here (day-old news, I know).

And on top of that, it turns out that, according to this Parade Magazine article by Gail Sheehy, he was hired by Benazir Bhutto to “(play) up to Musharraf” (nothing further need be said there, I realize).

Penn has obviously lived on the high wire for some time and was due for a fall, but I cannot imagine how it could have come at a worse time for him or his most visible client; we’ll see what happens with “Obama-rama” of course, but for now, he’s got to help HRC to start getting some primary wins, and somehow I think he’s going to need a lot more than “Mom-Fluentials Research” (Schmitt explains) to get it done.

Update: At least Penn, Hil and company can take a bow for now.

Shed no tears for Trent Lott, by the way, as he departs to the private sector and thus cashes in from his years in government; an ideological transition from A to B will take place as you might expect with Repug Gov. Haley Barbour’s appointment of Mississippi U.S. House rep Roger Wicker to fill Lott’s seat - here.

And where will Lott go? Why, to work with former Democratic Senator John Breaux to form their own “consulting” group (here - some of Breaux’s shilling for the utterly ridiculous Medicare Part D drug plan is noted here).

And file this one under “Let’s Not And Say We Did,” OK? It looks like Hugo Chavez, during the course of an interview with Naomi Campbell, asked the supermodel to “touch his muscles” (no word yet on whether or not Chavez has been chastened by his recent electoral setback).

Luckily he didn’t ask her to hand him the phone (ba-dump!).

And by the way, “Happy Birthday” Lynndie England (she’s actually due to get out of prison later this year, believe it or not – maybe she could get sent back to Iraq?).

"No Cred Fred" Looks For A Hand

So with all of the electoral hoopla currently going on in New Hampshire on the Repug side with the media pronouncing John McCain the winner, Mitt Romney trying to outspend everyone, Ron Paul supporters declaring war on Faux News (yaay!), Mike Huckabee wondering if cranky New Englanders care about the opinion of Midwest fundies (and Rudy! off to Florida? Wha??), there is one question lurking somewhere in my mind, and America deserves an answer.

Where exactly is Grandpa Fred anyway? Did he get lost, or just wake up too late from his nap?

Well, Christine Bynum of ABC News has the answer here; it turns out that he’s in South Carolina already.

Why (aside from the fact that he has no shot of winning up north)…

"Everyone is in New Hampshire … [we're] not playing up there," Thompson told a crowd of about 100 people at a diner in Greenville, S.C. "Still got snow banks six feet high there and we're down here in South Carolina, so I ask you who’s the smartest one?"

Dude, you’re not going to have a shot at the Granite State’s electoral votes admiring the beauty of the jessamines, OK?

And just for good measure, Fred tosses in a hosanna to Strom Thurmond. How nice.

At his morning event, he played up his Southern roots, joking "people can understand what I'm saying down here."

I guess they’re also still fighting the Soviet Union in South Carolina, then? And they don’t know whether their state rag flag is posted in a public place or not?

Of course, this is all about a man who seemed to grow bored both with being a blogger (too funny) and a corporate lobbyist (here).

The thought of Fred Thompson as president is more laughable than frightening, but it’s truly scary for me to contemplate the alleged life forms who would actually vote for him.

Glenn Greenwald Explains Everything

More concisely and with better statistics, I might add...

Edwards -- who, just one week ago, was 10 points behind Obama nationally among Democrats -- is now only two points behind him. Less than a month ago, he trailed Clinton by 29 points. Now it's 13 points. He is, by far, at his high point of support nationwide. Apparently, the more exposure Democratic voters get to Edwards and his campaign positions -- and that exposure has been at its high point during his surge -- the more they like him.

(Hat tip to Avedon Carol at Eschaton for this)...

Pro-Hypocrisy First, Pro-Life Second

I should note that, as a Roman Catholic in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, the language against abortion coming from our church back towards the congregation has grown more strident since about last Christmas. I mean, there have always been "general intercessions" on behalf of the unborn, and prayerful requests for respect towards all life, and that is as it should be.

However, over the last few weeks, the Church has been offering as a prayer "an end to all legalized abortions." Not much "wiggle room" for misinterpretation, is there? And yes, I believe this is wrong for many reasons that have to do with highly personal medical decisions between a woman, her doctor, and her family and spiritual influence of sorts if she chooses to involve them in the matter.

But given this more intrusive stance, I'll await the day that Pope Benny calls for withholding communion to presidential aspirant Rudy Giuliani the same way he did to John Kerry in 2004 here (though I'm not even sure a controversy like this could halt Rudy's slide in the polls - a related "goof" post is here).

(And by the way, regarding prayer at church, how about some intentions to save our jobs and our health care, to say nothing of the climate crisis? How come those issues never "make the cut" on Sundays before the collection basket appears?).

And speaking of abortion, here is information on a ridiculously self-indulgent new trend (I hope this is as big of a joke as the "Kerry Holy Observer" post, but I'm not sure - h/t Thers at Eschaton); also, Little Ricky did his Ebert and Roeper thing on this topic last Thursday here.

Update 1/9/08: On topic, there is probably a lot more to be said about this story, but for now...

Monday Videos

Back Door Slam ("Come Home" - nice)...



...Happy Birthday to Paul Revere of The Raiders ("Hungry" - another You Tube fan vid...oh, behave! Rock bands wearing historical military uniforms were big back then, by the way, including Gary Puckett and The Union Gap, though in my innocence at that time I never understood the appeal)...



...I missed the 45th birthday of Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich last December 26th ("Nothing Else Matters" - no such thing as a bad time to hear Metallica)...



...and now, time for a bit of culture; Happy Birthday to virtuoso cellist Yo Yo Ma (here playing "Sayuri's Theme" from "Memoirs of a Geisha" accompanied by John Williams on piano - exquisite).

Monday Political Stuff

Kudos to the Ron Paul supporters for making Sean Hannity run from them (again, no shot on yours truly supporting the guy, but it's still cool to see Paul and his followers "rattling the Repug cages" like this; h/t to Scout Finch at The Daily Kos - don't know anyone else who has this at the moment besides Cliff Schecter here - Update: my bad)...



...and here's some food for thought for anyone currently fond of Mike Huckabee, from Max Blumenthal and Thomas Shomaker.

General Nonsense On Iraq And The Media

I should probably be more respectful towards Gen. Peter Pace, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but it’s difficult.

I mean, even though he was punked by Robert Gates here (not renominated as Head of the Joint Chiefs to disallow the possibility of Congress asking him questions about Iraq – nice), he still managed to lose sympathy points with me based on the following excerpt from this New York Times article today…

Just days earlier, in his valedictory address as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace used his final minutes as the nation’s highest-ranking officer to describe how his interactions with Congress and the news media had soured him on both.

“In some instances right now we have individuals who are more interested in making somebody else look bad than they are in finding the right solution,” General Pace said.

Gee, General, maybe we would take you more seriously had you not said here that your former boss, Defense Secretary Rummy, was “inspired by God” (and when it comes to making somebody else look bad, I think there are pretty good examples here from the occupant of An Oval Office, though I realize that it's much more difficult for you to assign blame where it's due than to merely set straw men afire instead).

Dubya's "Voodoo Economics"

(A term coined by his dad, let’s not forget, before he “saw the light”…).

I’ll save you the trouble of trying to decipher these scribblings by Jeanne Sahadi of CNN about the supposedly grand plan from George W. Milhous Bush to save our ever-more moribund economy and summarize it as follows: Dubya’s answer, as always, is tax cuts and ever-more debt.

(Another cringe-worthy columnist, Ed Henry, preaches for the umpteenth time here that, for Dubya’s “legacy,” he must compromise with Congress, which makes me wonder what planet this man is living on; at what point has Dubya ever compromised on anything?).

And largely as a consequence of this stupidity, this story tells us that, for the first time in 100 years, British living standards have risen above those of Americans (somehow I don’t exactly feel like “raising a pint” over that one).

Paul Krugman touched on all of this today here, and his blog contains posts from today and yesterday that basically support the fact that much of Europe has caught up with us economically; it also rebuts the myth that lower tax rates in this country contributed to economic growth (for anyone besides the investor class, I mean).

A “Revival” For Edwards?

This column about John Edwards written by Ezra Klein of The American Prospect is, quite simply, the best analysis of the Edwards campaign that I have read to date.

Yes, to call Edwards the “Oprah” candidate could be slightly demeaning I think, but I also think it accurately describes the visceral level to which Edwards is trying to appeal to Democratic voters, something he must do to continue the momentum of a second-place Iowa finish (first would have been best, of course, and Obama is the justifiable frontrunner at the moment, but all of this could change one way or another in a short time).

(By the way, Klein mentions Sandy Lakey in his column, and this notes that Edwards defended the Lakeys in their suit against Sta-Rite, the company that manufactured the defective pool drain that disemboweled the Lakeys’ young daughter Valerie.)

As Klein so accurately notes…

Where other campaigns routinely feature outside politicians and famed surrogates, Edwards is more likely to tour with the sort of guests you'd see on daytime talk: Ordinary people who have undergone extraordinary hardship. Where the other candidates closed their Iowa campaigns with sincere speeches laying out the arguments for their candidacies, Edwards ran a commercial where a burly Iowan spoke emotionally of the moment when Edwards leaned down, stared his seven-year-old son in the eyes, and promised to fight for his father's job.

This irritates the Press Corps. It's schmaltzy and raw.

Boy, does it ever. Witness this nonsense from the New York Times over the weekend…

Mr. Edwards has a strong populist message, but it sounds a bit odd coming from a former tort lawyer and hedge fund executive who ran as a completely different person in 2004. One of his ads features an out-of-work Maytag employee who said Mr. Edwards promised his 7-year-old son: “I’m going to keep fighting for your daddy’s job.” We’re still waiting for Mr. Edwards to explain how he, or any politician, can turn back the tide of economics and globalization. We’d prefer if he explained how to make it work for all Americans.

That's a particularly snotty and elitist observation given the gory job numbers from last month and the depressing economic forecast for this year (neither of which is the fault of the American workforce, as usual, but due to cyclical economics exacerbated by corporate greed and malfeasance).

And Bob Herbert (who definitely should know better) pronounced the Edwards candidacy as “all but literally on its knees” here (and speaking of “the old gray lady,” it looks like their “new hire” had a problem today).

With all of this in mind, here is a post from Prof. Marcus over the weekend that links to a fine analysis by Daily Kos diarist JedReport concerning the extend to which Edwards is covered (ignored?) in the media.

I’m doing what I can to help Edwards finish no lower than second in New Hampshire, setting the stage for a must-win South Carolina primary. Will it work? Nobody knows. But I can tell you right now that our dear corporate media cousins, many of whom have names made of initials, will be just tickled to death if it doesn’t.

And all I’m going to say concerning the Repugs and New Hampshire is that I’m going to laugh my ass off if somehow “Senator Honor And Virtue” loses, because you can’t go to the bathroom or wind your watch these days without someone predicting that he’s going to win.

The “Okie Hold ‘Em” King

While skimming through Parade Magazine yesterday, I noticed this article about a bill that “strongly urges” states that have not contacted the FBI about individuals diagnosed as “dangerously mentally ill” to do so. The Parade article noted that only 32 of 50 states contact the FBI about these people; the purpose is to try and prevent individuals such as Seung-Hui Choi – the coward who murdered 32 people at Virginia Tech; odd numerical symmetry, that – from ever perpetrating such deeds again.

And why on earth would such a bill not be law by now (a gun bill even supported by the NRA, believe it or not)?

The answer is Senator Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, who put a “hold” on the bill.

And this is one of 95 holds that Coburn has on Senate bills.

95.

Are you as shocked by that as I am?

This article in The Politico tells us the following (I try to be careful about sourcing from these people, but I think this is acceptable)…

(Coburn) has also held up funding for research on breast cancer, watershed restoration, a bill to designate Bill Clinton’s birthplace a National Historic Site, a boundary modification for Grand Teton National Park, a bill against dogfighting and one naming a post office after environmental writer Rachel Carson, among scores of other bills large and small.

…

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.)…still betrays some anger after being in Coburn’s cross hairs a few months back over an earmark that Nelson was pushing for a Nebraska company that employed his son. “What we found out was that the earmark [Coburn] was complaining about in Nebraska, his colleague had similar earmarks in Oklahoma that he had no problem with,” said Nelson.

A Coburn aide said that the senator doesn’t have the time to go through every earmark, and he encourages others to challenge ones that he hasn’t specifically gone after. But Nelson’s and other senators’ problem with Coburn is more fundamental than a single earmark: They oppose his effort to drastically reduce earmarks.

“That approach presumes that it is far better to have nameless, faceless bureaucrats deciding how money is spent in Washington rather than elected officials. The problems with earmarks have really not been about the earmarks themselves necessarily, but about eleventh-hour earmarks, no transparency and what have you. With transparency, earmarks are in general fundamentally fair,” said Nelson.

It is truly rare for me to agree with Ben Nelson on much of anything, but I think he’s absolutely right here.

And the Politico story notes that one of the bills held by Coburn is the Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act sponsored by Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). As a result, funding for research, rehabilitation and other “quality of life” issues is being held up because of Coburn’s pique (more here; some truly hammerheaded comments to the Tulsa World story, by the way, though that paper, unlike the Inky, at least allows comments to their stories and editorials).

And another infamous hold by Coburn is noted here concerning the Emmett Till Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act, which was passed in the House of Representatives by a vote of 422 to 2 (don't know if Joe Pitts was one of the "no" votes; wouldn't surprise me) and was scheduled to be passed by unanimous consent in the Senate (this is a hold that Harry Reid honored, unlike the one Chris Dodd placed on the flawed FISA bill).

I don’t know what it says exactly about the Senate that a single individual is able to exercise so much power to satisfy his own narrow self interest, but at the very least, this should be cause to introduce legislation limiting the number of holds a Senator is allowed to place on legislation. Getting rid of secret holds was a good first step (here; the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 requires notification of the person placing a hold after 6 days, another accomplishment from the supposedly "do-nothing" 110th Congress), but because of Coburn’s antics, more obviously needs to be done.

Any “Energy” To Run Against Patrick, PA Repugs?

The following letter appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times on Saturday…

We applaud the U.S. House and Senate for passing a much-needed energy bill, and we especially commend Congressman Patrick Murphy for his leadership on this forward-looking legislation.

Most significantly, this new law increases fuel efficiency standards for automobiles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, the first such increase in 32 years. As oil has reached $100 a barrel, this legislation will significantly reduce Americans' oil consumption, our dependence on imports, and will help combat global climate change. The bill also contains numerous measures to increase the efficiency of buildings, household appliances, electronics and light bulbs, all of which save consumers money on electricity bills.

This bill is good for jobs, good for the economy, good for national security, good for consumers and good for our planet. We look forward to continuing to work with Murphy to make more progress on clean energy in 2008.

Gene Karpinski, President
League of Conservation Voters

And as noted here, the bill was signed into law by President George W. Milhous Bush last month, though it kept in place tax credits for energy companies who most certainly don’t need them, and the bill falls short in development of clean, renewable sources of power (here). Still, it’s the first skirmish in a battle that will be fought over a changing political landscape in this country, I’m sure (for our betterment, if we go out and help to make that happen).

Speaking of battles, I’m still hearing nothing about a potential Repug challenger to Patrick for his PA-08 U.S. House seat; Thomas Manion, Gene DiGirolamo and others – including Mikey Fitzpatrick, who appears to be in a hopeless quandary on the matter – have all refused to declare at this point.

I’ll tell you what – in the interest of free and fair elections, I’ll try to help out Bucks Repug chairman Harry Fawkes on this; if anyone wants to run as a Repug against Patrick, just leave some information in a comment and I’ll pass it along to the head of the Bucks County GOP.

My own personal choice here would be Jay Russell. After all, he’s got time on his hands from screwing up one election last year – why not try to do so again (or is he afraid to do so without the benefit of Jim Cawley’s “guidance”?).

"The Only Honorable Course"

I'll try to get back to the blogging thing for real today, and to begin, this was posted yesterday by Prof. Marcus, and I'll link to it here for anyone who missed it (h/t Atrios) - words to live by from former Sen. George McGovern.

And in a related vein, here is the most recent "Pap Attack"...



...and John Flynn performs "Dover."



Update 1: I forgot to note this earlier, but here's another way to accomplish this goal (for Cheney, anyway).

Update 2: Careful what you wish for here, Dubya.

Friday Videos

Happy Birthday to Bernard Sumner of Joy Division ("Love Will Tear Us Apart")...



...Syd Barrett of Pink Floyd would have been 61 62 on Sunday ("Wish You Were Here," accompanied by a neat slide show - "classic rock" I know, but I always had a soft spot for this song)...



...Happy Birthday also to Michael Stipe of REM (this was a good interview with him conducted by Bill Maher in March 2006 - "my" band, though? - but do yourself a favor and shut this off after about 5:25; this was the episode where Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and that airhead Michele Mitchell ganged up on Richard Belzer - I got into all of that here)...



...and Breaking Benjamin ("Until The End," with some clips from the first Fantastic Four movie - another message for the Edwards campaign).

Friday Political Stuff

I certainly don't support him as a candidate, but kudos to the Ron Paul people for taking snark to a whole new level (re: Rudy and his latest bogus campaign ad)...



...and speaking of campaign ads, this is just a reminder that John Edwards is sticking around - we have a ways to go.

Fair Is Fair

Atrios is right; this was a good speech (I thought Obama co-opted some themes articulated by John Edwards, but to be fair, they belong more to the party than a single individual).

Though I obviously wish Edwards had won, I can respect Iowa's Democrats a lot more than I can respect that state's Republicans; Frederick of Hollywood does little more than take a nap and scuff his shoes a time or two in that state and he manages to come in tied for third?



Posting is big question mark for today, by the way - have fun.

By the way, John Zogby on C-SPAN, speaking about St. McCain, just said that New Hampshire loves him, particularly because "he's the 'straight-talking maverick' again."

God, is the bar open yet?

Thursday Videos

Chris Cornell ("You Know My Name"; soundtrack to the latest James Bond film, apparently - I don't keep up with those flicks, though the clips here look good)...



...and as an admittedly feeble attempt at a pick-me-up for John Edwards who came in second in Iowa tonight behind Barack Obama, here's "It Doesn't Matter" by Stephen Stills and Manassas on the occasion of Stills' 63rd birthday (actually, it does matter I know, but we have hopefully a lot further to go in this thing and a lot more work to do).



Update 1/4/08: By the way, best wishes for a full recovery, Stephen (here).

A Sad Inconsistency

Can someone explain to me why the White House would release a statement expressing sympathy concerning the murder of four Russian diplomats in Iraq that took place in June 2006, but say nothing about the murder of American diplomat John Granville in the Sudan along with his driver, an employee of the American embassy (here)?

Here is a link to the White House site, by the way – maybe they’ve updated it, but I couldn’t find anything.

To be fair, Sean McCormack of the State Department answered questions about the murders in this wide-ranging press briefing here, but I guess those who quite probably killed our own people aren’t “high value targets” worthy of mention by Bushco.

Little Ricky Goes To The Movies

I’m currently trying to avoid any news whatsoever on the Iowa caucuses (hey, it would be cool if John Edwards pulled it out, especially because New Hampshire would be a much tougher slog), partly because I don’t have much “capacity” for the blogging thing at the moment and I want to spread it around as much as I can, and partly because I’m sick of hearing about Iowa and I just want it over and done with, OK?

So, with that in mind, I happened across the latest tripe from Former Senator Man-On-Dog in the Inquirer today, and I felt that (as usual), it deserves a response.

Little Ricky is waxing philosophic (for him) over what he sees as a positive trend in the movies, and that is “recognition of life in the womb” (which, as we know, is the “soft focus” code language regarding the attempts to criminalize a woman’s right to decide what transpires regarding her body).

To wit…

U.S. audiences flocked to see five motion pictures with life-affirming texts or subtexts: Knocked up, Waitress, Bella, August Rush and Juno.

In these movies, abortion was urged on women facing an unplanned pregnancy, and rejected. Ultrasound images awakened characters and audiences to the humanity of the unborn. Having a baby, even in the most challenging circumstances, became the compelling "choice." Adoption was held up as a positive alternative to abortion. And, unlike the news media's portrayal of pro-lifers, protesters outside abortion clinics were authentically depicted as warm and concerned. This stood in contrast to the indifference of the staff within.

I can’t judge that remark because I didn’t see these movies, but I’m sure it is every bit as bogus as something you might expect from our former senator (and as far as those “warm and concerned” pro-lifers – and I’m sure many are, to be fair – take a look at this).

And while I know it is “department of the obvious” stuff to point out that this supposed “flowering of pro-life America” is nothing but corporate Hollywood forcing its imprimatur on its movies in order to placate an extremely noisy and easily-dissed minority that is as offended by the “a” word as they are about the exposure of Janet Jackson’s 40-year-old, diamond-studded, African American mammary gland, it needs to be pointed out anyway (and the New York Times does so here)...

Though conservatives regularly accuse Hollywood of being overly liberal on social issues, abortion rarely comes up in film. Real-life women struggling with unwanted pregnancies might consider an abortion, have intense discussions with partners and friends about it and, in most cases, go through with it. But historically and to this day in television and film — historians, writers and those in the movie industry say — a character in such straits usually conveniently miscarries or decides to keep the baby.

“It’s one of those topics that would alienate a portion of the audience no matter what you do,” Sarah Brown, executive director of the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, said of Hollywood’s reluctance to tackle abortion more realistically.

Perhaps directors of feel-good movies don’t want to risk portraying their heroines as unsympathetic characters.

Jonathan Kuntz, an American film history professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, said that for the entertainment industry, “It’s a no-win situation.”

“It’s kind of a tricky topic,” he said. “It’s something that’s going to turn off people on both sides unless you do it just right. It’s no surprise Hollywood avoids it.”

Well, since our moviemakers apparently think American audiences are too immature to watch a production that deals with abortion intelligently and realistically (which is, in the end, a good way to curb abortion anyway, but Santorum’s mentality of denial is part and parcel of the dogma of keeping men and women and children sexually ignorant anyway), I should note here that a Romanian film "4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days" won the best film prize at the 20th annual European Film Awards in Berlin last month (“a harrowing film about illegal abortion in communist-era Romania,” according to the story).

Sorry that doesn’t sound like such a “life affirming” tale, former Senator Scumbag, but I guess we have to leave this country altogether to watch an intelligent treatment of this topic that would probably do more to encourage the pro-life choice desired by many than anything you could muster with your prejudiced and misinformed editorial attacks.

Why I Hate The Corporate Media

This is "echo chamber time," but I don't care; Richard Cohen brought us this dreck yesterday...

John Edwards lied about the cost of his haircuts.

Uh, no. As BarbinMD of The Daily Kos points out...

Apparently Mr. Cohen decided to ignore the fact that the cost of Edwards' haircut(s) was revealed through...wait for it...the Edwards' campaign's FEC filings.

Everyone else maligned by Cohen can fend for themselves, but I just wanted to point that out.

Wednesday Political Videos

Big hat tips to Prof. Marcus and Lukery for this (here - and how right Sibel Edmonds is)...



...and shifting gears a bit, here's my response to this Atrios post (tongue in cheek, of course) on Rudy! (God, Tweety looks like Murrow reincanated for a few fleeting seconds; I must be dreaming!).



...and of course, we must consider this "soft focus" moment with second wife Donna Hanover (hope things are still dreamy between "America's Mayor" and Judi N.)...



...and here's another tribute to the 2007 "Dregs Of The Year".

Wednesday Mashup (1/2/08)

This analysis

of Mike Huckabee in the New York Times last Sunday brought us the following excerpt…

“I see Huckabee as more of a Prairie populist than what I would consider a traditional conservative,” said former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a stalwart of the conservative movement once considered a 2008 presidential contender himself. “I don’t see how he takes that show across the East Coast or even the Midwest.”

Still, he acknowledged that in some ways Mr. Huckabee’s combination of social conservatism and sympathy for the working class also touched a fault line that ran further through the Republican Party, including in his home state of Pennsylvania.

“He would do very, very well in southwestern Pennsylvania, Reagan Democrat country,” where many socially conservative working-class voters “have a heart for the poor and, unfortunately, think of government as the answer,” Mr. Santorum said.

Take a look at this, Little Ricky. It tells you that Democrats have won Pennsylvania in the last four straight presidential elections. And we’re going to do it by more than three points this year (that was John Kerry’s margin in ’04), you sanctimonious prick (yeah, I know, I’m not supposed to be about name-calling, but I’ll make an exception for Santorum).

(By the way, while I definitely am not a fan of any Repug and I think Huckabee has so many problems that it’s a pathetic testimony that he’s even being taken seriously, I have no personal animosity towards him; I didn’t like the whole “cross” thing in the ad...if a fraud like Bill Donahue is exercised over it, then to me, this ultimately is not a big deal...but it’s par for the course for his ilk.)

Dan Froomkin of The Washington Post lets us know here that George W. Milhous Bush and his minions are going to go after the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge again in an effort to siphon off any oil and utterly ruin the related ecosystem (this is a recording).

God, these people truly are locusts; it never matters how many times they’re told “no,” they always come back for what they want (take a lesson for a change, congressional Democrats).

And who is going to be one of the slovenly minions in pursuit of this disaster, you may ask (besides Dick Cheney and new Bush “counselor” Ed Gillespie)?

Why, that would be Barry Jackson, who was named to succeed “Turd Blossom.”

What, you mean you don’t know who he is? Neither did I until a minute ago, actually, but it turns out that (according to here)…

Jackson was "one of the White House employees discovered to be using RNC email accounts[2] to e-mail an associate[3] of disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff."[4]

So he appears to be eminently qualified to “move up the ladder” among this brood of vipers.

Simply put, this post points out that, in the 2006 Connecticut Democratic Senatorial primary, John Edwards supported Ned Lamont and Barack Obama supported this guy (who subsequently bailed on the victims of Hurricane Katrina as chair of the Senate Homeland Security Committee, refused to investigate contractor fraud in Iraq, and recently endorsed John McCain for president, even though he said he would support a Democrat for president in 2008).

And for the record, I agree with kos here that the whole “Iowa caucus” thing is a little ridiculous anyway.

(By the way, posting will continue to be iffy for a few days; some “pay the bills” stuff to do instead.)

Update 1/2/08: What's a million or so here or there, right, Arlen?

Mark Shields Talks About Government

He’s not bad as far as it goes with corporate media journos (link here), though he has uttered an unkind word about bloggers from time to time. However, I think this is something to remember periodically (spoken at a commencement address given to Hobart and William Smith Colleges on May 12, 2002).

Permit me a word of what has become the mindless demonizing of government.

Government at its best has always been and can be a crucial instrument of helping people to help themselves. After all, it was the national government that affirmed the Bill of Rights. Our precious natural resources have been protected, preserved against the shortsighted and the greedy, not by local government but by the national government.

The national government has been accused of diminishing freedom, and that is true. Yes, "the freedom" of the privileged and the powerful to work 11-year-old children in mills and mines and in factories was abolished. Abolished by the government, the national government. "The freedom" of powerless workers to endure squalid conditions for near starvation wages was abolished by the national government. The freedom of the majority to impose racial segregation to deprive African-Americans, Latino-Americans, even those who had fought for their country and spilled their own blood to buy their own child a hamburger, a Coke and fries, or to use a public restroom. Yes, those "freedoms" were proudly abolished. Not by states' rights, not by local government or privatization or Dow Jones, but our national government.

Just 30 years ago in the United States, 34 of every 100 Americans over the age of 65 lived in poverty. Today, largely because of what other Americans have done through their own national government the percentage of seniors living in poverty has been cut by three-quarters.

Government can and does make mistakes. Government is not perfect. It is flawed and it can be terminally frustrating in its unresponsiveness.

But it is important to our national community and confidence that we celebrate our successes. In the very lifetime of the members of the Class of 2002, think of what we have achieved in this nation for the environment. At the beginning of the decade in which many of you were born, three out of four rivers in the United States were unswimable and unfishable. The Great Lakes, the greatest fresh water gift any people had been blessed with by a generous Providence, were actually dying. So polluted and infected was the Cuyahoga River running through the city of Cleveland that it actually caught fire. And this nation committed itself under a Republican president, Richard Nixon, and a Democratic Congress to end our abuse of nature. Just in your own lifetimes, we have gone from three out of four rivers being unswimable and unfishable, to four out of five being swimable and fishable, to 99 percent of the lead being removed from the air, to the Great Lakes now alive and vibrant and vital, spiritually, economically, recreationally because of what those who went before you did, and cared to do and committed to do. Your lungs are healthier, your lives are longer and better, and so will be your children's. And it is important to celebrate.

It was a great Republican president, Theodore Roosevelt, who said, "The government is us. We are the government, you and I."

(Note: I’m doing more site housekeeping stuff and changing a few links; that’s why I’m reposting this.)

"Shake Your Money Maker," J.R.

I suppose this will be yet another New Years’ ritual, but Hangin’ Judge J.R. of The Supremes is back to beg for more money again (here).

If nothing else, I admire J.R.’s sense of punctuality; I posted on this same subject exactly a year ago (here).

Well, if I were an employer, I would decide whether or not I wanted to reward an employee with more dough if they truly understood the value of a dollar. So I decided to do a little digging into some of J.R.’s prior decisions to find out if he qualified.

And before I give you my answer, please take a look at this Wikipedia article on the False Claims Act (also called the “Lincoln Law”), which states that it…

…is an American federal law which allows people, whether affiliated with the government or not, to file actions against federal contractors claiming fraud against the government. The act of filing such actions is informally called "whistleblowing". Persons filing under the Act stand to receive a portion (usually about 15-25 percent) of any recovered damages.

The Act provides a legal tool to counteract fraudulent billings turned in to the Federal Government. Claims under the law have been filed by persons with insider knowledge of false claims which have typically involved health care, military, or other government spending programs.

As you consider this, I would ask that you read about the case of “United States ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488 (D.C. Cir. 2004)” (more information is on pg. 9 here).

As the linked text tells us…

Edward Totten, a former Amtrak employee, brought this action under the False Claims Act, charging that two private companies had delivered defective rail cars to Amtrak and had submitted invoices to Amtrak for payment for them from an account that included federal funds. The district court dismissed the case, holding that, under the False Claims Act, the false claims must have been presented to an officer or employee of the United States government, and that, since Amtrak is not the government, the Act did not apply.10

Totten appealed, and in a 2-1 ruling in which Judge Roberts wrote the majority opinion, the D.C. Circuit affirmed. Judge Roberts stated that the plain language of the statute required the claims to “be presented to an officer or employee of the Government before liability can attach,” and that it was not sufficient for the claim to be paid by a federal grantee using money provided by the government to pay the claim where the grantee was not a department or agency of the government. 380 F.3d at 490, 491.

Judge Merrick Garland dissented, stating that “[u]nder the court’s interpretation, the government cannot recover against a contractor that obtains money by presenting a false claim to a federal grantee,” and that the “court’s ruling immunizes [from False Claim Act liability] those who defraud” a government-funded corporation that receives billions of dollars in federal funds, merely because the grantee does not re-present the claims to the government. Id. at 503. Judge Garland criticized the majority’s interpretation of the Act as “inconsistent with its plain text” as well as “not just inconsistent, but irreconcilable with the legislative history of the 1986 amendments to the False Claims Act.” Id.

Judge Garland further noted that the government, arguing as an amicus curiae on behalf of Totten, had warned that the interpretation of the Act adopted by the majority “leaves ‘vast sums of federal monies’ without False Claims Act protection.’” Id. at 502 (citation omitted). According to the government, this interpretation will “‘significantly restrict[] the reach of the False Claims Act in a manner that Congress did not intend, withdrawing False Claims Act protection with respect to a broad swath of false claims inflicting injury on the federal fisc.’”
Id. at 516.

And though Judge Garland pointed this out above, this Wikipedia article tells us that Amtrak, while not a government agency, is “a quasi-governmental corporation” and “all of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the Federal government. The members of its board of directors are appointed by the President of the United States and are subject to confirmation by the United States Senate.”

And as Judge Garland also noted, Roberts’ narrow reading of the False Claims Act would prevent the government from recovering “vast sums of federal monies” in the event that a legal verdict of fraud is determined against a “a quasi-government agency” or related party.

So, to answer my question of whether or not J.R. truly understood the value of a dollar (coming from our taxpayer funds in both federal and state aid), I would have to say that the answer is no (and I know Roberts is seeking raises for federal judges besides those sought for he and his fellow Supremes, but my verdict on this still stands, if you will).

Try again on the raises next year, J.R.; at least he didn’t call it a “constitutional crisis” this time.

Bushco's New Years' "CYA" On Bhutto

This Yahoo News story tells us…

The United States provided a steady stream of intelligence to Benazir Bhutto about threats against her before the former Pakistani prime minister was assassinated and advised her aides on how to boost security, although key suggestions appear to have gone unheeded, U.S. officials said Monday.

…

The intelligence was also shared with the Pakistani government, the officials said.

That’s about as good as helping Musharraf figure out how to kill her as far as I’m concerned; as noted here, police abandoned their security posts in Rawalpindi shortly before she was killed, and the preposterous notion that she received a fatal skull fracture by bumping her head on the hood of the car would be laughable except for the circumstances (the absence of an autopsy is most telling of all, though).

And besides, if our government was supposedly so cooperative with Bhutto and her supporters, then why was her husband, Asif Ali Zardari (who visited the United States shortly before her death to plead for help) denied the meetings he sought at the top levels of the State Department (noted here by Roger Cohen; “Genghis” did a good job, which happens not nearly as much as it should…Cohen also notes that Bushco failed to pressure Musharraf to allow the FBI to investigate the previous attempt on her life last October 18th).

And in the wake of all of this, NBC News correspondent Michelle Kosinski tells us here…

At the gates of Liaquat Park, where Pakistan's first prime minister had been assassinated, and where Benazir Bhutto waved her last to the crowds on Thursday, was a small group of older men, praying silently together. And one by one, more people on the streets would join them, slowly and without cheering or jeering or setting anything aflame but some white candles.

None of them noticed us. Their sorrow was more palpable in that moment than the lingering oily smoke that made us stifle our coughing.

That was the last image we saw in Rawalpindi before darkness completely overtook the dusty old town.

Most of Pakistan is not raging in the streets, but waiting, and watching. Worrying, and mourning.

And in the unreal world of Beltway punditry, we have Little Timmeh Russert trying to get Barack Obama to confirm the absurd “conventional wisdom” that, somehow, Bhutto’s assassination is a weapon of sorts to be used against Hillary Clinton for her vote in favor of the Iraq war (huh?).

I’m not happy with Obama for some of his recent, right-wing-pandering comments against John Edwards and other Democrats, but I thought he did a good job here stating the obvious (though Atrios and Arianna are both right, sadly – “zombie lies never die,” especially this year).

Update: This is positive anyway.

Tuesday Videos

Alter Bridge ("Rise Today"; a nice, anthemic kickass rocker to start the year)...



...Hank Williams died of a drug and alcohol overdose 55 years ago today (here's the standard "Lovesick Blues," and this is just about as close to country as I get - a collection of performance clips from the '50s not synched with the song; love the jacket)...



...and in recognition of some of the unfortunate public statements coming from the Democratic senator of Illinois running for president (here and here), here's "Politician" with Jack Bruce and Rory Gallagher (tongue firmly in cheek here)....



...and speaking of politics, here is a timely message with the Iowa caucuses coming up in two days (and we'll take all the help we can get).

Ringing In The Old, Unfortunately

Sorry to start things off on a bit of a downer, but the New York Times hit a home run with this editorial yesterday...

There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country. Sunday was one of them, as we read the account in The Times of how men in some of the most trusted posts in the nation plotted to cover up the torture of prisoners by Central Intelligence Agency interrogators by destroying videotapes of their sickening behavior. It was impossible to see the founding principles of the greatest democracy in the contempt these men and their bosses showed for the Constitution, the rule of law and human decency.

It was not the first time in recent years we’ve felt this horror, this sorrowful sense of estrangement, not nearly. This sort of lawless behavior has become standard practice since Sept. 11, 2001.

The country and much of the world was rightly and profoundly frightened by the single-minded hatred and ingenuity displayed by this new enemy. But there is no excuse for how President Bush and his advisers panicked — how they forgot that it is their responsibility to protect American lives and American ideals, that there really is no safety for Americans or their country when those ideals are sacrificed.

Out of panic and ideology, President Bush squandered America’s position of moral and political leadership, swept aside international institutions and treaties, sullied America’s global image, and trampled on the constitutional pillars that have supported our democracy through the most terrifying and challenging times. These policies have fed the world’s anger and alienation and have not made any of us safer.

In the years since 9/11, we have seen American soldiers abuse, sexually humiliate, torment and murder prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq. A few have been punished, but their leaders have never been called to account. We have seen mercenaries gun down Iraqi civilians with no fear of prosecution. We have seen the president, sworn to defend the Constitution, turn his powers on his own citizens, authorizing the intelligence agencies to spy on Americans, wiretapping phones and intercepting international e-mail messages without a warrant.

We have read accounts of how the government’s top lawyers huddled in secret after the attacks in New York and Washington and plotted ways to circumvent the Geneva Conventions — and both American and international law — to hold anyone the president chose indefinitely without charges or judicial review.

Those same lawyers then twisted other laws beyond recognition to allow Mr. Bush to turn intelligence agents into torturers, to force doctors to abdicate their professional oaths and responsibilities to prepare prisoners for abuse, and then to monitor the torment to make sure it didn’t go just a bit too far and actually kill them.

The White House used the fear of terrorism and the sense of national unity to ram laws through Congress that gave law-enforcement agencies far more power than they truly needed to respond to the threat — and at the same time fulfilled the imperial fantasies of Vice President Dick Cheney and others determined to use the tragedy of 9/11 to arrogate as much power as they could.

Hundreds of men, swept up on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, were thrown into a prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, so that the White House could claim they were beyond the reach of American laws. Prisoners are held there with no hope of real justice, only the chance to face a kangaroo court where evidence and the names of their accusers are kept secret, and where they are not permitted to talk about the abuse they have suffered at the hands of American jailers.

In other foreign lands, the C.I.A. set up secret jails where “high-value detainees” were subjected to ever more barbaric acts, including simulated drowning. These crimes were videotaped, so that “experts” could watch them, and then the videotapes were destroyed, after consultation with the White House, in the hope that Americans would never know.

The C.I.A. contracted out its inhumanity to nations with no respect for life or law, sending prisoners — some of them innocents kidnapped on street corners and in airports — to be tortured into making false confessions, or until it was clear they had nothing to say and so were let go without any apology or hope of redress.

These are not the only shocking abuses of President Bush’s two terms in office, made in the name of fighting terrorism. There is much more — so much that the next president will have a full agenda simply discovering all the wrongs that have been done and then righting them.

We can only hope that this time, unlike 2004, American voters will have the wisdom to grant the awesome powers of the presidency to someone who has the integrity, principle and decency to use them honorably. Then when we look in the mirror as a nation, we will see, once again, the reflection of the United States of America.

"Pinch" Sulzberger and the gang are still chumps for hiring Bill Kristol, but for now, we have our marching orders for 2008.

Update 1/2/08: And here's more from clammyc...

One of the legacies of six years of the George W. Bush Administration is that America has gone "From $20 trillion in fiscal exposures in 2000 to over $50 trillion in only six years? What shall we do for an encore... shoot for $100 trillion?"

Typing this I feel like Alice talking with the Cheshire Cat:

"But I don't want to go among mad people" Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that" said the Cat: "We're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be" said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

The US is insolvent. There is simply no way for our national bills to be paid under current levels of taxation and promised benefits. Our combined federal deficits now total more than 400% of GDP.

That is the conclusion of a recent Treasury/OMB report entitled Financial Report of the United States Government [.pdf] that was quietly slipped out on a Friday (12/15/06), deep in the holiday season, with little fanfare. Sometimes I wonder why the Treasury Department doesn't just pay somebody to come in at 4:30 am Christmas morning to release the report. Additionally, I've yet to read a single account of this report in any of the major news media outlets but that is another matter.

But, hey, I understand. A report is this bad requires all the muffling it can get.

In his accompanying statement to the report, David Walker, Comptroller of the US, warmed up his audience by stating that the GAO had found so many significant material deficiencies in the government's accounting systems that the GAO was "unable to express an opinion" on the financial statements. Ha ha! He really knows how to play an audience!

Oy (yes, I know that makes this a year old, but that doesn't diminish its urgency as far as I'm concerned)...