No Economy Of Common Sense

The New York Times ran this Op-Ed piece today by Steven E. Landsburg, a professor of economics at the University of Rochester, who, among other things, has said that those who choose no health insurance should not receive (potentially life saving) treatment (as noted here). And he is a self-described “libertarian,” which, to me, means that he’s bought into the whole Ayn Rand, laissez faire capitalist, “me, myself, and I and everyone else can drop dead” thing.

How sad.

So it should come as no surprise that Landsburg’s piece in the Times today is a free-market love fest which contains this sickening piece of agit-prop…

If you’re forced to pay $20 an hour to an American for goods you could have bought from a Mexican for $5 an hour, you’re being extorted.

Pardon me while I spit up a burrito at my PC monitor for a moment.

This does, though, give me an opportunity to compare the earnings of American-based CEOs as opposed to their foreign counterparts (after all, isn’t it true then, using Landsburg’s logic, that we’re being “extorted” if we pay CEOs in this country more money?).

This article actually praises the status quo in this country using language such as the following (I’ll get to the “con” argument shortly)…

The international pay gap (between American and foreign CEOs) arises, under this theory, because foreign CEOs don't have the same power over their boards. In most foreign corporations, control shareholders act as strong checks on executive pay. Control shareholders will recoup most of the firm's surplus that is not paid out to the factors of production, such as CEOs, and therefore have strong financial incentives to keep executive pay abroad low. Thus, by comparison to U.S. levels, foreign CEOs are paid less.

One example I can think of in this country where “control shareholders” have a lot to do with CEO compensation is The Vanguard Group in Malvern, PA, where the “shareholders” are those who have purchased the company’s mutual funds and other products, in line with the management structure conceived by John Bogle, the company’s founder.

And considering the wholly other extreme, we have this blog post from USA Today that notes the utterly excessive compensation awarded to Lee Raymond of Exxon-Mobil, Pfizer’s Hank McKinnell and Home Depot’s Bob Nardelli; in the latter two cases, their companies performed poorly, but in Raymond’s case, Exxon-Mobil did well of course, due to rising oil prices that he had no involvement with at all.

And to return to Landsburg’s original argument, what is the effect of paying less for a foreign worker (considering China in the following example here as opposed to Mexico) versus an American? We know all too well…

The rise in the U.S. trade deficit with China between 1997 and 2006 has displaced production that could have supported 2,166,000 U.S. jobs. Most of these jobs (1.8 million) have been lost since China entered the WTO in 2001. Between 1997 and 2001, growing trade deficits displaced an average of 101,000 jobs per year, or slightly more than the total employment in Manchester, New Hampshire. Since China entered the WTO in 2001, job losses increased to an average of 353,000 per year—more than the total employment in greater Akron, Ohio. Between 2001 and 2006, jobs were displaced in every state and the District of Columbia. Nearly three-quarters of the jobs displaced were in manufacturing industries. Simply put, the promised benefits of trade liberalization with China have been unfulfilled.

But, as Landsburg tells us today in the Times, “All economists know that when American jobs are outsourced, Americans as a group are net winners.”

“American economists,” then, have obviously never flipped burgers at “Mickey D’s” as a stopgap until permanent future employment returns (hopefully) or sweated out the final weeks of unemployment while hoping and praying for a job offer.

Finally, I should note that the University of Rochester named Landsburg “Professor of the Year in Social Sciences” in 2007.

Remind me to cross off the University of Rochester from my list of places or institutions I ever intend to visit for the rest of my life.

Update: Speaking of the economy (what an airhead)...

The Robertses Are At It Again

There’s so much wrong with the latest screeching from Cokie and Steve Roberts concerning that oh-so-ugly partisanship that has Washington, D.C. in its grip that it’s really impossible to refute it all (and to be honest, even if I did, they’d just be back about a month or so later repeating it all over again – I don’t like partisanship either really, but I like zombie-like compliance with the corpocracy’s dicta as articulated by their media slaves even less).

However, I just want to take issue with a couple of items. First…

When political advantage is the only goal, any lawmaker who tries to reach across party lines immediately takes fire from his or her own ranks. Consider (John) McCain's courageous attempts to work with Democrats like Ted Kennedy on immigration reform. To hear his fellow Republicans, you'd think McCain represented Hades (Kennedy's home state), not Arizona.

Oh, ha ha, did you read that? The Robertses made a funny! A slur against the commonwealth of Massachusetts. And it was printed. What a “laff riot”!

Sounds like it’s time for another blogger ethics panel (and by the way, to get the full story on “Senator Honor And Virtue” on immigration, click here.)

Well, guess what? Read this first in the column from the Robertses…

Just look at one issue: health-insurance coverage for children (which Hillary Clinton stressed on the stump in winning New Hampshire). There is no better way to spend taxpayer dollars than keeping kids healthy and out of costly emergency rooms. Congress did pass a bipartisan measure extending coverage to 10 million children, but Bush vetoed it and lawmakers upheld his action.

The bill financed the expansion by raising tobacco taxes — a smart idea, since higher prices would also reduce teenage smoking. But the president adamantly refused to cross his most conservative supporters and consider tax increases of any kind. Democrats were also reluctant to compromise, believing that gridlock gives them a great issue for the fall campaign. Bottom line: paralysis.

Cue scary-sounding incidental music: du-du-duuuuuh!

I don’t know how “Democrats were also reluctant to compromise,” but I do know this; Dubya eventually signed an SCHIP extension (here). But of course, you would never know that from the Robertses.

Must be nice to live in the world of accountability free punditry – cushy gig, that.

A Brief Thought On Tom Manion

I’ll be respectful towards the declared Repug opponent against Patrick Murphy for the 8th district seat in Congress (ignoring Madden and Lingenfelter for now) as long as he acts in a similar manner, but I must point out something based on this Philadelphia Inquirer story (and I’ll also ignore for now Manion’s laughable claim that somehow Patrick Murphy is responsible in part for the partisanship in Washington, D.C., though Manion has to run on something, I realize - Brian Scheid and the Courier Times have more here)…

(Tom Manion) moved to Bucks County with his wife and two children in 1990, when he joined Johnson & Johnson (Manion is an executive with the big pharma company).

OMG, you mean Manion isn’t “a lifelong resident of Bucks County” like the beloved Saint Mikey?

Well then, I’m sorry, but I have no choice then but to trump up the admittedly idiotic story line that Manion was “dropped into” our district by the Republican National Committee during the presidency of Poppy Bush as a sleeper of sorts, to be sprung into action when his party needed his services as they do now.

I mean, how much did we read about how Patrick was “dropped into” our district by Nancy Pelosi and the national Democratic Party two years ago; see, Patrick is not a “lifelong resident,” which is definitely a slur of sorts in these parts, as noted here.

And now, apparently, it turns out that Manion isn’t either.

Just file this as another double standard of the “do as I say, not as I do” Republican Party, then.

Monday Videos

Arctic Monkeys ("Fluorescent Adolescent"; so sad when clowns go bad - tsk, tsk)...



...Happy Birthday to Don Glen Vliet, otherwise known as Captain Beefheart ("Click Clack" live from Paris in 1973 - wonder what those silly French people were thinking when they watched this?)...



...happy belated birthday to T-Bone Burnett, here with "Earlier Baghdad (The Bounce)"; I haven't quite made up my mind on this yet, but it's interesting...



...and Happy Birthday also to Iris Dement, performing "You Can Close Your Eyes" with James Taylor.

Monday Political Stuff

Concerning this "Huckabee moment," doesn't it make you all "warm and fuzzy" for The Man From Hope-Less, you "values voters" (should scare the crap out of anyone in this country with a brain, though - h/t The Daily Kos)...



...and congratulations to The Mittster on winning in Michigan tonight (tongue planted firmly in cheek here)...



...and K.O. brings us the "Worst Person In The World" from yesterday (and by the way, it's "Jonah" Goldberg, alias the Doughy Pantload - don't ask)...



...and to get serious for a minute, I wonder what this man would have made of all of this (he would have been 81 today)....



Also, here's a link to his speech at the Barratt School in South Philadelphia in 1967.

Update 1/16/08: This is somewhat "off-topic," but that's OK; check out the thread commenter Ron is referring to here from J.D. Mullane's blog post. I haven't managed to read all of it yet, but it sounds like our ol' buddy J.D. got called on some of his typical liberal-baiting language and had a meltdown over it (with assistance from some of his like-minded knuckle draggers).

Happy Landings For "Bubble Boy"

This tells us…

Alan Greenspan, a former Federal Reserve chairman, is joining the hedge fund Paulson & Co. as an adviser, the New York-based company said Tuesday.

And this tells us…

As rising delinquencies on subprime mortgages escalated into a global credit crisis this summer, some in the $1.8 trillion hedge fund industry thrived, like Paulson and Scion, while others fell.

And The Shrill One tells us this about Greenspan…

(Greenspan is) like a man who suggests leaving the barn door ajar, and then - after the horse is gone - delivers a lecture on the importance of keeping your animals properly locked up.

As Krugman said, the chutzpah is breathtaking.

Patrick Murphy Finally Has A Repug Opponent!!

As I live and breathe, it turns out that Tom Manion of Doylestown, a 53-year-old pharmaceutical executive and a recently retired colonel in the Marine Corps Reserve, has decided to challenge Patrick Murphy for the U.S. House 8th district seat in PA (here, with Mikey cheering from the sidelines, of course).

I will give Manion the respect of acknowledging that he lost his son Travis, 26, in Iraq during his second tour, and we should extend our thanks to both of them for their sacrifice on our behalf and in particular to the father for enduring such a tragic loss.

However, if Manion intends to act in accordance with the foul boilerplate concocted by the Bucks County Republican Party (an example of which appears in the sign…these people live in their own particularly demented version of wingnuttia), then I can assure you that he will receive the same treatment Mikey did from your humble narrator.

Manion held a meeting with reporters at his house today at 2 PM, so I am sure that he has announced by now and more details will be forthcoming shortly.

But in the meantime, this Guest Opinion appeared in this morning’s Bucks County Courier Times from Harry Heavey of Bensalem, PA, a retired firefighter and a Democratic committee person (great timing, I must say)…

In a recent Courier Times article, Congressman Patrick Murphy was once more brought under the spotlight for his sponsorship of earmarks. Writer Brian Scheid stated, “I received many phone calls and e-mails, mainly from Republicans who all wondered the same thing: Why had the Courier Times ignored this critical story?”

There is a saying in law that you don't ask a question if you don't know the answer. Republicans wanted the Courier to do a critical story about Congressman Murphy sponsoring earmarks. The Courier Times published the story but there was no criticism. Why not?

To answer that question, you have to go back to the shenanigans of the prior Republican Congress where earmarks were standard fare. In that Congress, no one had to identify the sponsor of the earmark nor was there time to review it. Consequently, there were infamous earmarks like the Tea Pot Museum and the multi-million dollar bridge to nowhere.

Then the Democrats took over Congress, including Congressman Murphy. The earmarks were condemned for what they were — secret methods for wasteful spending to pad members' re-election.

When a congressman is sworn in, he has two major responsibilities. One is to do what is best for the country; the second is to do what is best for his district. Doing what is best for his country is best achieved by working with party members and the opposing party to pass bills that benefit the country as a whole. Doing what is best for his district is often achieved by inserting earmarks.

There are major differences in today's earmarks as opposed to the earmarks of the Republican Congress. The changes are as follows:

1. No more secretly inserting spending items into the federal budget.

2. Committees are required to disclose the sponsors of spending projects.

3. Trading of earmarks for votes is forbidden.

4. Members and spouses must certify they have no financial interest in earmarks.

5. Pay-as-you-go spending required new spending to be offset by cuts elsewhere.

Under the new benchmark rules, the sponsoring member identifies himself and there is time to review the earmark before voting. Congressman Murphy has identified himself as sponsor on any earmarks he introduced.

As stated earlier, earmarks are a way of meeting a congressman's obligation to benefit his district. Congressman Murphy sponsored legislation for the following purposes:

Commerce, Justice, Science and related agencies: Lower Makefield, Bucks County Security Threat Group; Bristol, law enforcement equipment; Bucks County Law Enforcement Interoperability.

Department of Defense Appropriations: molecular switch vaccine for bio defense and cancer; skin/equipment chemical decontamination; strategic bio terror response for battlefield survival.

Energy and Water Appropriations Bill: Southampton Creek flood plain management services; Community College of Philadelphia Small Business Development.

Interior Appropriations Bill: Yardley Borough Sewer Authority

Labor, Health and Human Services: St. Luke's Quakertown Hospital; St. Mary Hospital Foundation; American Red Cross, Lower Bucks County Chapter.

Transportation, Housing and Urban Development: Pennsylvania Turnpike / I-95 connection; Yardley, improvement of storm water systems; SEPTA, hybrid buses.

These earmarks aim at bettering our nation and/or our community. If you don't oppose these things, you should be supportive of Congressman Murphy's earmarks. Consequently, when you look at the disgraceful earmark practices of the Republican Congress, as opposed to the open and honest earmark rules of the Democratic congress, you can recognize how Murphy has used the benefits of a fair, open, honest system to serve his country and his district.

As previously stated, smart lawyers don't ask questions unless they already know the answers. Now that the Republican's question has been answered, any reasonable person would thank Congressman Murphy. Unfortunately, the Republicans who asked the question are not moderate or reasonable Republicans but those right wing extremists who find something wrong in everything except their own failures. These are the Republicans still supporting President Bush.

Yep (and as always, to help Patrick, click here).

The Edwards Freeze Out's "Exhibit A"

I apologize for continuing to beat this drum, so to speak, but I would ask that you consider this New York Times story written today by reporters Adam Nagourney and Jennifer Steinhauer for a minute or two. It pertains to the efforts of the Democratic contenders for president and their courting of the Hispanic community.

The Times reporters devote a lot of space to the efforts of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, as you might expect, noting also that former Arizona governor and presidential aspirant Bill Richardson is Hispanic. There is also mention of former Clinton administration HUD secretary Henry Cisneros, Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa…hell, even Al Sharpton is quoted, taking the opportunity to provide the laughable observation that, somehow, Obama “has not been part of…efforts to make (racial) progress.”

This story is about 1,250 words in length. As noted, it pertains to the Democratic presidential campaign.

And John Edwards isn’t mentioned even once.

And I really don’t know what else there is to say.

And by the way, New York Times Public Editor Clark Hoyt and others, please don’t try to “toss us a bone” by saying that your mention of Edwards launching four new campaign commercials in South Carolina on “The Caucus” here is somehow supposed to lend balance.

Well, since the Times won’t tell us about Edwards’ Latino support (I know it’s dwarfed by what Clinton and Obama enjoy, but at least it’s there), I would ask that you read this.

And to learn more about the campaign in general, click here (and I can only add “what Atrios sez” about this).

Update 1/16/08: The beat goes on (sigh)...

BoBo Almost Makes My Head Explode – Film At 11

David Brooks of the New York Times continues to embellish the corporate media narrative that the campaigns of Democrats Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the presidential nomination are nothing more than the triumph of “identity politics,” which is pretty much defined as someone running for office to represent a group that has been actually oppressed in some fashion or merely perceived as having received that treatment (here).

This does at least three things, I realize. First, it keeps the “divided Democrats” theme lurking out there in the shadows of public consciousness somewhere, and second, by excluding John Edwards, it implies that white males have no place in the Democratic Party. Third (as always), it gives Brooks a launching point from which he can foist more misinformation on us.

This is not really news, I know. However, Brooks does go off on this right-wing riff that is really a doozy…

All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action, like Ward Churchill and Thomas Sowell, and critics of the radical feminism, like Christina Hoff Summers, are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners.

I can understand how Brooks can use this column as an excuse to plug fellow freepers Hoff Summers (whose work is quite properly dissected here by Jennifer Pozner) and Thomas Sowell (likewise here and here)…but Ward Churchill??!! Mr. “little Eichmanns” himself?

I always thought Churchill was nothing more than a nut sheltered in academia who should be left alone to rant for his cloistered audiences, given as little exposure as possible to the outside world composed of actual grownups. The fact that the freepers made him a poster boy for their vitriol speaks volumes to both the shallowness of their arguments and their own intellectual bankruptcy.

And as you can read here, Churchill was an “affirmative action officer” at the University of Boulder in 1978 and received special treatment by some alleged status as a native American, nursing a grudge based on class oppression in consideration of that status, though the Rocky Mountain News reported in 2005 that Churchill had “no evidence of a single Indian ancestor.”

I have no evidence also to support a claim by Brooks or anyone else that Churchill opposed affirmative action, and even if I did, Churchill’s lack of credibility would automatically rule out any thought I’d have of citing him to support my argument.

And by the way, for more evidence of our august corporate media stoking this “Hillary/Obama brawl” for all it’s worth (jumping from "affirmative action" to the whole "raced-based politics" thing), here’s Michael Duffy, managing editor of Time, telling both sides to call Jim Wallis for a “feel good love in” of sorts that will of course be criticized also by Brooks and his ilk (Jim Wallis, who “knows their hearts well”; pardon me while I gag…and Duffy has some of his own issues that are noted here).

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to take some Ibuprofen and go lie down in a dark corner somewhere (Atrios was right – the “silly season” is now a whole lot sillier).

One more thing: spank me and send me cryin' to my mama about Brooks' point at the very end about the Latino vote. He's absolutely right, though not just about the Dem nomination; they'll play a huge role in the general election in November.

(In a related vein, J.D. Mullane of the Bucks County Courier Times was shockingly sensible here; that can only mean a no-holds-barred hissy fit from him against Dems in general will be published shortly.)

Update 1/18/08: To be fair, I should note that BoBo clarified today that he was referring to Ward Connerly instead of Ward Churchill, though Connerly apparently has another whole set of issues - surprised?

Monday Political Stuff

OK, Michigan Dems, you know what to do (h/t The Daily Kos)...



...and so do the rest of us (nice work by JedReport - glad Cate wasn't hurt in the car accident today).



Update 1/15/08: David Sirota has more.

Dubya's Space Dreams A Flight Of Fancy

Just noting that four years ago, President George W. Milhous Bush thus spoke the following (here)…

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying "the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond.

"We do not know where this journey will end, yet we know this -- human beings are headed into the cosmos," Bush said. "Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives and lifts our national spirit."

Meanwhile, on terra firma (here)…

Despite the Bush Administration's public commitment to the space program, in the form of the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration initiative, which sets goals of returning men to the Moon, establishing a base there, and later mounting manned missions to Mars, the White House has refused to adequately fund it. The five-year projection of the budget needed annually by NASA to meet the program's major milestones, proposed by the Administration and passed by Congress in 2005, has been underfunded by more than $1 billion per year.

What a shame that we can’t send this administration into orbit instead.

Bill Kristol's Wankery Continues

Slightly less obvious from last week, perhaps; from Greg Mitchell of Editor and Publisher here…

Kristol in (today’s) column, which hailed the success of the "surge" in Iraq, concluded with this trump card: Now the Iraqi government has agreed on de-Baathification, a key gain that proves his point and pretty much destroys the Democrats' stand.

Well, even that claim is debatable to yours truly. But as Solomon Moore of the Times notes, according to Mitchell…

"…the (de-Baathification) legislation is at once confusing and controversial, a document riddled with loopholes and caveats to the point that some Sunni and Shiite officials say it could actually exclude more former Baathists than it lets back in, particularly in the crucial security ministries.

And as noted in Moore’s story by Sunni politician Khalaf Aulian…

“Many Baathists hated the Baath Party, but they were part of it to have a job,” he said. “By this law, we will push them into the insurgency.”

Peachy (and for more “fun” with the Times’ new “quota hire,” click here).

Smerky Slams "Obama-Rama"

Philadelphia’s resident right-wing know-it-all Michael Smerconish concocted this yesterday in the Inquirer…

On the morning after Hillary Rodham Clinton's upset victory in New Hampshire, I spoke to MSNBC host Chris Matthews. He said that after anchoring coverage on MSNBC, he had been up all night talking to the NBC pollsters, trying to figure out how the pre-vote polls all got it wrong in projecting a double-digit win for Barack Obama.

Matthews wondered how they had been dead right in Iowa, and on the Republican side, but wrong with the Democrats.

I think the following from this story about HRC’s New Hampshire win is pretty close to the mark…

In the end, though, key voting blocs were there for Clinton - or were not there for Obama, depending on how the campaign frames it. According to exit polling conducted by The Associated Press and the networks, far more women voted than men; Clinton won 45 percent of them compared to 36 for Obama.

Also according to exit polls, only half as many New Hampshire voters under 30 turned out as in Iowa, depriving Obama of crucial support.

And I honestly believe that Clinton benefited from that lame-brained “iron my shirt” stunt those idiot radio people in Boston pulled, with HRC handling that moronic example of utter sexism like the pro that she is. On the one hand, it showed her as more “human” to the voters (and yes, maybe the “crying moment” also), but on the other hand, I don’t want to contemplate the notion that it takes a gimmick to get people to vote who otherwise would not have bothered (though I’m sure that’s true…sigh, and of course,we can't really claim our votes are secure anyway without a paper backup, can we?).

Update: I should have noted the following from here...

More than half of New Hampshire's elections administrators hand count paper ballots in public at the polling place, with a public chain of custody. The rest of New Hampshire's towns and cities use Diebold voting machines to count votes in secret, with a secret chain of custody...still no way to run an election, though, my note).

And back to his column...of course, Smerky saw (the N.H. result) differently (and to pretend that Matthews is objective towards HRC in any way is laughable when you consider this – no wonder he was apoplectic at Obama’s loss)…

"All I can tell you," Matthews said, "is that people did something inside the voting booth that was different than what they told the pollsters."

The host of Hardball was being diplomatic. Let me be more straightforward: Voters lied to the pollsters, and they did so because of race. I know. I saw it firsthand, in 1987, right here in Philadelphia.

For the benefit of anyone not from this area, I should note that Smerky is going to give us a bit of a history lesson in his eyes that will show how utterly provincial he is. And this is an easy trap for the punditocracy to fall into…

That year, I was Frank Rizzo's political director in his bid to retake City Hall. He had been defeated by W. Wilson Goode four years prior in a Democratic primary and was now taking another shot as a Republican. Marty Weinberg, Rizzo's campaign manager, believed Rizzo could make up the small margin by which he'd lost to Goode among Democrats in 1983 if, in 1987, the city's then 200,000 Republicans were added to the mix.

We in the Rizzo campaign always believed the election was impossible to poll because of race. As with Obama, Goode was what we would now call "the P.C. choice," although I don't know whether political correctness was yet an expression we used.

Which, to Smerky, is the greatest evil of all, as we know (I’m surprised the Inky didn’t let him plug his book here that protests it)…

By that I mean that Goode was certainly the more publicly acceptable, fashionable choice. In certain quarters, voters were reluctant to admit publicly their desire, much less their willingness, to vote for Rizzo.

That may be because Frank Rizzo was perhaps the most divisive mayor in the history of Philadelphia, pledging not to raise taxes and then signing into law the highest increase Philadelphia had seen to its onerous city wage tax; he also survived a recall petition because he tried to change the city charter and run for a third term, and he was political damaged by a scandal that ensued when it was found that he lied concerning a patronage scheme involving Democratic party boss Peter Camiel - the atrocity of the PGW takeover was another blemish (aside from the senior citizen discounts by that gas utility – all of this and more is recounted here…I’ll always wonder what would have happened had he won in ’91, though – also, his son is really a “stand up” guy).

On Election Night in 1987, I had the heady experience (for a 25-year-old) of being a spokesman for the Rizzo campaign. Simultaneous with the closing of the polls at 8 p.m., I was scheduled to do a live shot on TV with veteran anchor Larry Kane. Minutes before, Kane told me that the Channel 10 pollster predicted there would be a blowout win for Goode - with 70 percent of the vote! Kane also told me, and informed the Goode campaign, that he was refusing to publicize the poll because he knew it was incorrect.

"When I saw that lopsided tally, I knew people were lying," Kane told me last week.

The polling data were never aired. Goode beat Rizzo by just 2 points. And the pollster was fired.

Kane reminded me that the same thing occurred with former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, who was the odds-on favorite to win the California gubernatorial election in 1982 but lost, and lost again in 1986. In his honor, the tendency of white voters to say one thing and vote another is sometimes called "the Bradley effect."

Now this is where it starts to get interesting…

I was reflecting on all of this when Chris Matthews gave me his analysis of the New Hampshire vote. Why were polls more accurate about the outcome in Iowa? Because Iowa voted by caucus, meaning, in a public forum. But New Hampshire voted inside a ballot booth. With a curtain! Iowa voters knew they would be publicly accountable for their votes, so they were stuck. New Hampshire voted in anonymity.

So…somehow Iowa voters were “stuck” with voting for Obama because they couldn’t hide their vote? That’s a pretty pathetic commentary on Iowa voters. Somehow I think they would have just opted for HRC outright, then (in '87, there was only one Democrat on the ticket in Philadelphia, but Iowa had a choice).

Why is what I saw locally in 1987 reemerging nationally in 2008? Obama's campaign has been a juggernaut, in part because he has been the recipient of a free ride by the media, creating a sense of inevitability that he will be the first African American to be nominated by either party. To be opposed to that movement on substantive, issue-oriented grounds is nevertheless to risk being thought a racist. Rather than run that risk, voters choose the easier path of lying to a pollster. Even when anonymity is guaranteed.

That “free ride by the media” comment is truly laughable, when you consider the unbelievably ugly partisan smears Obama has had to overcome primarily from Smerky’s acolytes at Faux News; they basically tried to “strangle Obama’s candidacy in its crib,” if you will, but thankfully they failed.

And it’s also funny that Smerky says that about Obama but forgets this moment when he praised the Illinois senator.

The same dynamic makes the media reluctant to put Obama under the microscope.

Just look at what happened to Bill Clinton. In New Hampshire, he talked in substantive terms about what he believes to be inconsistencies in Obama's record pertaining to Iraq: "It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted with the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you are now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there is no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since.' Give me a break. This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I have ever seen."

Reacting to that comment, Donna Brazile told Wolf Blitzer on CNN that "I will tell you, as an African American, I find his tone and his words to be very depressing."

The only thing I’ll say in Smerky’s defense a bit here is that I think Obama has gotten all of the mileage he can out of his entirely correct vote to oppose the Iraq war (and while I think Bill Clinton is going through more than a little semantic gyrations trying to spin Obama’s words against him, it is waay too funny to see Smerky defending The Big Dog; anyone who doubts that our corporate media wants to see HRC running against whatever Repug emerges must also believe in the tooth fairy).

What exactly did (Brazile) mean by "as an African American"? That had nothing to do with Bill Clinton's substantive comment about Obama and Iraq. Are Obama opponents supposed to be muzzled at this stage, forbidden to use the words fairy tale to question his meteoric rise against the backdrop of little media due diligence? One thing is certain: When pundits start speaking as members of a particular race, public discourse will diminish and suffer.

Smerky should communicate that to Ruben Navarrette, Jr., who uses his ethnicity to bait Democrats/liberals/progressives every chance he gets (re: "Clinton doesn't deserve that kind of (Hispanic) support" here).

Bill Clinton was right. I hope the media drop their double standard and fully vet Obama's candidacy. This hands-off stuff only adds to an atmosphere in which voters who don't like Obama fear to admit it. It all but forces voters to be hypocritical. As long as Obama gets a free ride, 2008 will be the year of the Bradley effect.

That remains to be seen; I think there will be some of “the Bradley effect,” but naïve liberal that I am, I honestly believe this country is ready for a candidate who will stand up for their interests (primarily John Edwards, who of course is dutifully ignored here by Smerky) as opposed to automatically endorsing those who would do the bidding of this country’s corpocracy at every turn, and I think that will outweigh the issues of racism and sexism in this election which, sadly, are very much alive.

One more thing: Smerky’s comparison of Obama to former Philadelphia mayor Wilson Goode (recalling 1987) is almost too outrageous for words. Aside from basic problems in elocution, Goode suffered from a chronic inability to crunch numbers (a big problem as former managing director) as well as the baggage from the 1985 MOVE disaster, in which Goode thought the image of an entire block of West Philadelphia row homes going up in smoke was merely “snow on his TV set.” Rizzo clearly tried to capitalize on that in the ’87 contest, but his own baggage was too much to overcome also (though an election result that close in a city with the substantial Democratic majority enjoyed by Philadelphia is an accomplishment, I’ll admit).

Maybe instead of complaining about Obama getting “a free ride from the media,” Smerky could practice some actual journalism and inform his readership regarding Obama’s policy positions on the economy, the climate crisis, education, the legitimate fight against terrorism – even illegal immigration (red meat for Smerky’s primarily freeper audience). But I guess that’s too much to ask from “a mover and shaker of public opinion” who would rather engage in barely supported speculation that amounts to mud slinging.

Stick to telling us the tales of your beard, and other related tripe next time, OK? And leave legitimate analysis to the bloggers and select “traditional” media sources, since apparently we are the only ones who can provide it in this election.

Update: By the way, concerning New Hampshire, Smerky may want to take a look at this.

Patrick Supports Our Vets Again

Back to the Courier Times for this (in their “Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down” segment from Saturday)…

(Thumbs Up) To Congressman Patrick Murphy for his willingness to fight the small battles for veterans.

After hearing about veterans unaware of benefits they were eligible for at the state and county level — such as an exemption from paying property taxes — Murphy and another congressman wrote a letter to Daniel Cooper, the VA's undersecretary for benefits, encouraging him to better inform veterans.

Cooper responded by promising to include a paragraph about local benefits in award notification letters, instructing veterans to contact their state and county governments to find out what other benefits they can receive.

“It's a small thing, but it will go a long way to make sure all veterans receive all their benefits,” said Dan Fraley, director of Veterans Affairs for Bucks County, who said he gets five to 10 calls a year from veterans unaware of their benefits.

Too often it seems politicians only take action when it is sure to generate a lot of publicity, even if the public benefit is marginal. It's nice to see Murphy looking out for veterans by taking the time to ask for this small change, which might only amount to a couple sentences but could translate to hundreds or thousands of dollars staying in the pockets of eligible veterans. And, as far as we're concerned, that's no small change.

To learn more, click here.

A New Fight Against Guns

This letter appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times yesterday (no link available)…

The New Year is a time for annual resolutions, and the standards for these include weight loss, exercise routines and spending quality time with loved ones. If, however, you spend a minute looking back at 2007 to try to develop a meaningful resolution, look at the nearly 400 families in Philadelphia who lost a loved one to gun violence and murder, more than 125 of the victims under the age of 25. Unfortunately that statistic included our family (sic).

Eric was a 20-year-old college student, on the right track, going to school, working and enjoying his friends. His was not a typical gun death, barely newsworthy, but devastating to our family just the same. Perhaps if the gun laws included licensing and education requirements, his death may have been prevented. Our wish for the New Year is to help others avoid such a senseless death.

Most people watch the news and feel sad, but most also feel powerless to enact change. But what if you could – what a New Years resolution that would be. If you help with the fight for better gun laws, that action or the attention you give it could save one life, making it a very worthwhile effort.

My son was well liked and we received hundreds of letters of condolences. We ask that folks expend the same thoughtfulness and effort by signing the petition for better gun laws available on http://www.momsagainstguns.org. Moms Against Guns is a fairly new organization founded by Philadelphia resident and philanthropist, Lynne Honickman. Frustrated by the political rhetoric and lack of change, Ms. Honickman has formed this group hoping to bring individual voices together for a stronger united front calling for changes to the current gun laws.

You will see on the web site they have the support of (Philadelphia) District Attorney Lynne Abraham, (Wife of Philadelphia Mayor Michael Nutter) Lisa Nutter and others. All agree the safety of our children must come before anything else. Moms Against Guns has a goal of 50,000 signatures to be sent to our legislators, forcing this very political issue out front. It is too hard to fight the gun lobbyist alone; together each of our signatures will count. One death, let alone the many that have occurred, is too many.

So for yourself, your children and maybe for the memory of our son Eric, please start with this one accomplishment and make a difference.

Lisa and Robert Aberman and family
Middletown Township, PA

My sympathies go out to the Aberman family and Eric's friends; to learn more, click here.

A "Real Time" Snow Job

I know ThinkProgress noted here (h/t Atrios) that Tony Snow poked out from under his hidey hole to spout freeper propaganda on the writer's-strike-affected season premiere of "Real Time" on Friday ("everybody gets it wrong at the beginning of the war"; some day, elementary school classes of some other country/planet/universe that comes after us will study how the arrogance that gave rise to that statement helped denigrate every aspect of our political life, to our ultimate ruin if things keep going the way they are).

I wanted to take note, though, of Snow yakking about "voter fraud" when Maher brings up the issue of the integrity of our voting machines (a typical Repug tactic, and watch how seamlessly he transitions to "REAL ID" in the clip below, but then Catherine Crier quite rightly notes that no case has been documented, and Snow quickly says, "Are you kidding" but then changes the subject without providing evidence, and kudos again to Crier to stating how important it is to have a paper backup).

This, courtesy of Democratic Underground, provides links to a series of articles by McClatchy Newspapers about the role that the charge of "voter fraud" played in the U.S. Attorneys scandal (and doesn't it figure that the only one by Bushco apologist Matt Stearns is an attempt at exoneration?).

Also, I didn't see the entire show, but Mark Cuban, speaking about John Edwards, impugned his populism by stating that he was pretty much nothing but an angry rich guy "who should have his own blog" (which the Edwards site has anyway, of course, though I know what Cuban meant). I didn't see the whole show yet, but I hope someone mentioned that Cuban has had a lot to do with that Unity '08 farce.

Anyway, here's the video with Snow, Cuban, Crier and Matt Taibbi (many thanks to The Brad Blog)...



Update 1/15/08: As Kagro X so correctly puts it here, regarding the Kos campaign of trying to get Dems to vote for The Mittster (which, under Michigan rules, is perfectly legal)...

This case should tell you in no uncertain terms that when wingnuts cry to you about voter fraud -- and let's be honest, they're constantly crying about it -- they have not a clue in the world what they're talking about, and they should be given no more attention than if they'd told you they've got video of Elvis descending from a UFO to cast a stretchy, sequined ballot.

Do not forget this. There's nothing the Republicans whine about more annoyingly or more frequently these days than "voter fraud." And here they are, once again, demonstrating embarrassingly for all to see, that all they can really hope for is for the media not to ask any questions when they slap that oh-so-scary-sounding label on... well, whatever the hell they happen to have at hand.

Do not believe Republican crocodile tears about voter fraud. They don't know what it is.

Yep ("Election fraud," however, is another story).

Saturday Videos

I was really sorry to read here that the 40th anniversary of Johnny Cash's concert at Folsom Prison was canceled (here's "The Man In Black" performing "Folsom Prison Blues" in 1990 with The Highwaymen)...



...and to mark the end of the first week of ultra-conservative shill and Iraq War cheerleader Bill Kristol's new gig at the New York Times (where he ran into a bit of difficulty), here's "I Don't Like Mondays" by The Boomtown Rats, featuring a very young Sir Bob Geldof (fitting for the only day Kristol's screeds appear, and yes, I know this song is about the shootings by Brenda Ann Spencer in San Diego in 1979, mentioned here).

Today's "Dubya Moment"

From this post I found on the web site of the Baltimore Sun yesterday, concerning the visit of George W. Milhous Bush to the Middle East...

BETHLEHEM, West Bank — After descending the stone stairs to the dim grotto beneath the Church of the Nativity, President Bush lit a candle Thursday and stood in silent, somber reflection at the place where Jesus Christ is believed to have been born.

Emerging a short while later into the sunlit courtyard outside, he described the experience as "a moving moment for me. ... For those of us who practice the Christian faith, there's really no more holy site than the place where our Savior was born."

From this post by Chris Kelly at HuffPo yesterday...

"War on the one hand is such a terrible, such an atrocious thing, that no man, especially no Christian man, has the right to assume the responsibility of beginning it." - Tolstoy

And don't worry; even though Coulter would never return the favor and Kelly's post is funny, I won't take a shot at her as she deals with the recent loss of her father.

And time is short at the moment, so I also wouldn't expound on the laughable notion that George W. Bush is actually a Christian.

Friday Videos

Louis XIV ("Finding Out True Love Is Blind" - kind of loud and a little spacey looking, for effect of course; "hey, carrot juice," huh?)...



...Happy Birthday to Tom Rowlands of The Chemical Brothers ("Galvanize," a cautionary tale for sneaking into a club without proper ID; hip hop definitely isn't my thing, but it's got a good beat and the kids like it, so...)...



...happy belated birthday to David Bowie ("Ashes To Ashes"; I read that he was going for a Salvador Dali thing with this - vivid imagery and unforgettably strange)...



...and Happy Birthday to Vicki Peterson of The Bangles (their cover of "A Hazy Shade Of Winter" by Simon and Garfunkel; I think the movie clips are from "Less Than Zero," but I'm not 100 percent sure - foreshadowing what really happened with Robert Downey, Jr. a bit, though thankfully he's still with us).

Friday Political Stuff

I've been meaning to give a plug to the campaign at The Daily Kos to encourage Michigan Democrats to vote for Willard Mitt Romney in their upcoming primary (more info here - and in a related vein, Jackie and Dunlop offer their commentary on the flap over Mitt and the dog doody on his car from awhile back; the "s" word is flying around all over the place here)...



...and for a complete change of pace, here's the trailer for "For The Bible Tells Me So" from Brave New Films (more info here - powerful stuff).

Trying To “Ground” “REAL ID”

The Bushco beat goes on (here)…

Residents of at least 17 states are suddenly stuck in the middle of a fight between the Bush administration and state governments over post-Sept. 11 security rules for driver's licenses – a dispute that, by May, could leave millions of people unable to use their licenses to board planes or enter federal buildings.

And you just knew that DHS Secretary Mike (“City Of Louisiana”) Chertoff was in the middle of this somehow, didn’t you?

(Chertoff), who was unveiling final details of the REAL ID Act's rules on Friday, said that if states want their licenses to remain valid for air travel after May 2008, those states must seek a waiver indicating they want more time to comply with the legislation.

Or, of course, Chertoff could use some common sense for a change and actually delay implementation until the concerns of the states in question were addressed…but we know that’s not Bushco’s “M.O.,” don’t we?

Chertoff, as he revealed final details of the REAL ID Act, said that in instances where a particular state doesn't seek a waiver, its residents will have to use a passport or a newly created federal passport card if they want to avoid a vigorous secondary screening at airport security.

“The last thing I want to do is punish citizens of a state who would love to have a REAL ID license but can't get one,” Chertoff said. “But in the end, the rule is the rule as passed by Congress.”

And what an appropriate transition to this Wikipedia article on the REAL ID Act, which notes that the Act was “attached...as a rider on a military spending bill (H.R. 1268, which also included tsunami relief)” and then “passed the joint House-Senate conference report on that bill 100-0…There was no debate whatsoever on this piece of legislation.”

Of course there wasn’t. Why, who on earth would want to look soft both on the War On Terra, Terra, Terra You Godless Hillary-Clinton-Crying-Lovin’ Li-b-uruul and the urgent matter of assistance for the victims of a catastrophic act of nature halfway around the world by actually discussing this crappy legislation like adults?

And fittingly, Dubya signed this mess into law in May 2005 (stand up and take a bow one more time, you boneheads of the 109th Congress).

And if you’ll notice, the AP article states that “at least 17 states” are contesting REAL ID, but according to the Wikipedia article, it sounds like the only states that are nearing full compliance are California, New York, Alabama, North Carolina, and North Dakota. There are 17 states that have passed legislation opposing REAL ID, as noted, but there are 19 other states contemplating similar legislation.

Gee, that sounds like a pretty sizeable majority of our country opposes REAL ID, and this CNN legal analysis tells us why. In addition to the fact that this unfunded mandate puts huge financial burdens on the affected states…

...The act requires photos to be digital so authorities can include them in the multi-state database…But the IDs must also include additional features that drivers' licenses and non-driver ID cards do not incorporate.

For instance, the ID must include features designed to thwart counterfeiting and identity theft. Unfortunately, while including such features may sound appealing, on the whole, these IDs may make our identities less safe.

Once Real ID is in effect, all 50 states' DMVs will share information in a common database and may also verify information given to them against various federal databases. In addition, it's very possible that such data will be sold to commercial entities: Some states already allow driver's license data to be sold to third parties.

Even with current, unlinked databases, thieves increasingly have turned their attention to DMVs. Once databases are linked, access to the all-state database may turn out to be a bonanza for identity thieves.

Finally, the IDs must include a "common machine-readable technology" that must meet requirements set out by the Department of Homeland Security. And, somewhat ominously, Homeland Security is permitted to add additional requirements -- which could include "biometric identifiers" such as our fingerprints or a retinal scan.

…

It's that "machine-readable technology" requirement, along with the possibility of Homeland Security add-ons, that raises the most serious risk that the Real ID Act will cause privacy violations. (The fact that the technology must be "common" also raises the already-high risk of identity theft.)

The AP story also notes that the ID cards won’t contain microchips, a concern noted in the CNN analysis. However, who’s to say that that issue won’t be revisited by DHS?

And a huge issue for yours truly, among many others I’m sure, is who would be responsible for the manufacturing of these cards and how “open” would the technology be used in this process? And what kind of legitimate congressional oversight would be involved?

Personally, I’m still torn on the theory of a national ID card, which is what we’re talking about here of course despite the fact that the states are shouldering the burden (and this tells you how REAL ID was intended as a tool to be used by anti-immigrant hysterics such as House Repug James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin, the creator of this monster, pictured above).

Update 1/12/08: "They could screw up making jello," indeed.

Et tu, Ned?

I gritted my teeth a bit, I’ll admit, when I read here that John Kerry endorsed Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination; though I honestly don’t think Kerry was trying to slam John Edwards, I don’t think it showed much loyalty either (but then again, I think endorsing The Last Honest Man would actually have been the right thing for Al Gore to do in 2004; even though Lieberman had no shot, thank God, they did campaign together four years earlier).

But when I read here from Matt Stoller that Ned Lamont, the former Democratic senatorial candidate from Connecticut in 2006, endorsed Obama, that’s when I knew I had to say something.

I should note that the numbers definitely favor Obama over Edwards at the moment as we know, though Hillary has a huge lead in the super delegate count – sorry, but you’ll have to check The Daily Kos if you want to find out more about what that means exactly. And I also realize that many big Democratic names are jumping all over themselves trying to climb onto the “Obama-rama” bandwagon (Patrick Murphy’s decision to endorse when he did still looks prescient, but we’ll see).

But see Ned, here’s the rub; John Edwards campaigned for you. Not Barack Obama (who spoke out for Lieberman and didn’t even come to Connecticut for fear of offending Holy Joe), and certainly not Hillary Clinton (Bill, according to Stoller, went on Larry King soon after Lamont won and said “there was no difference between the candidates,” basically torpedoing Lamont’s support and costing him the election).

No, Ned, John Edwards had your back. And that’s one of the reasons we in the netroots hold Edwards in such high regard; because he stands on principle even when it’s unpopular.

I think you’re a fair minded guy who’s trying to do what you think is right for the party as a whole.

But still, you blew it.

Update: Jane Smiley of HuffPo has more here; Larry O'Donnell was a fraud when he lost his mind tearing into Willard Mitt Romney also - the last thing I'm doing to do is defend The Mittster, but that doesn't mean that you turn into a spitting, hysterical fool against him either.

And by the way, I encourage anyone reading this to follow Jane's example (here).

A Correct But Painful Strategy

This Yahoo News story tells us...

JERUSALEM - President Bush had tears in his eyes during an hour-long tour of Israel's Holocaust memorial Friday and told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the U.S. should have bombed Auschwitz to halt the killing, the memorial's chairman said.

Bush emerged from a tour of the Yad Vashem memorial calling it a "sobering reminder" that evil must be resisted, and praising victims for not losing their faith.

Wearing a yarmulke, Bush placed a red-white-and-blue wreath on a stone slab that covers ashes of Holocaust victims taken from six extermination camps. He also lit a torch memorializing the victims.

Bush was visibly moved as he toured the site, said Yad Vashem's chairman, Avner Shalev.

"Twice, I saw tears well up in his eyes," Shalev said.

At one point, Bush viewed aerial photos of the Auschwitz camp taken during the war by U.S. forces and called Rice over to discuss why the American government had decided against bombing the site (during World War II), Shalev said.

Reasonable people can disagree on this matter (one of the most serious imaginable, I know), but this Wikipedia article concerning the question of the Allies bombing Auschwitz tells us…

The British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, did not see bombing as a solution, given that bombers were inaccurate and would also kill prisoners on the ground. The land war would have to be won first.

The article also goes on to describe the bombing runs that took place in the vicinity of Auschwitz after the Allies took control of European airspace in March 1944, and "one bomb fell into the camp grounds (and the) Monowitz forced labor camp 5 kilometres (3 miles) from Auschwitz was bombed four times. On December 26, 1944, the U.S. 455th Bomb Squadron bombed Monowitz and targets near Birkenau (which was part of Auschwitz)."

Knowing what I know of this (and for whatever my opinion is worth here), I believe the only way to liberate the Nazi death camps was the manner in which it was accomplished by our forces through ground patrols. Bombing would have caused the Germans to evacuate and either leave their camp prisoners or kill all of them outright, though I realize that might have been preferable to some of the treatment they endured. And many of the prisoners required medical attention; how would they have received that while bombs destroyed everything in sight (and also consider the very real possibility of errant bombing that would have killed prisoners on top of those who had died already).

And on the other side of the argument, author Michael Berenbaum presents this.

As I said, reasonable people can disagree here, and this is a rare occasion where I will acknowledge that Bush could have been carried away by the intense emotional fervor of the moment. But his words indirectly cast blame on a generation of leadership that preceded him, betraying his cluelessness on the job once more.

Besides, maybe this would not have been a question had Dubya’s grandfather not cozied up to Fritz Thyssen, one of Uncle Adolf’s leading steel manufacturers, and the Consolidated Silesian Steel Company (CSSC), based in mineral rich Silesia on the German-Polish border whose company used slave labor partly from Auschwitz (here).

Maybe that’s a reason why Dubya is so ignorant of history; it’s got too much dirt in it from his family.

Thursday Videos

James ("Laid")...



...Jim Croce would have been 65 today ("These Dreams," with Maury Muehleisen, as always)...



...Happy Birthday to Shawn Colvin ("Round Of Blues," keeping it in a folky vein)...



...and happy belated birthday to Steve Harwell of Smash Mouth ("Walking On The Sun").

Thursday Political Stuff

Memo to Al Sharpton: You want to protest something? Then how about helping with this instead of trying to persecute a golf announcer (and yes, I know she was suspended for two weeks, which is ridiculous)...



...and "The Pap Attack" takes on George Will (awesome).

"Duffer" Sharpton Tries To Club His Way To Relevancy

(Posting is a question mark for tomorrow, by the way – I just don’t know at the moment. And a “duffer” is a term for a really bad golfer, just so you know.)

This may all sound strange from someone who calls himself a liberal, but I have to say it; I had a feeling Al Sharpton was going to worm his way back into the spotlight somehow (and he keeps such good company also, as you can see).

As incendiary and ultimately annoying a figure as he is, I didn’t really take issue with him over the Imus/Rutgers women’s basketball team brouhaha last year because I thought he was fundamentally on the right side of the issue (primarily because Imus was a repeat offender who made his name doing that sort of thing).

But today, we find out that Kelly Tilghman, an analyst for The Golf Channel, made a remark about lynching concerning Tiger Woods, but quickly realized what she’d done and apologized (and Woods, who has been nothing but gracious in incidents like this as far as I’ve ever read, accepted her apology).

And that should be the end of it.

But of course, with Al Sharpton lurking out there, you know it isn’t.

Sharpton says it is the word -- not the person or their history -- that matters. In a Wednesday interview, he compared Tilghman's statement to calling for a woman to be raped or for a Jewish-American to be sent to a gas chamber.

"Lynching is not murder in general. It is not assault in general. It is a specific racial term that this woman should be held accountable for," the reverend said. "What she said is racist. Whether she's a racist -- whether she runs around at night making racist statements -- is immaterial."

Wow, easy to throw around unsubstantiated charges knowing you may not get called on it, isn't it, Al?

Sharpton said he wants Tilghman fired, period. And if the Golf Channel doesn't comply, the network can expect to see Sharpton and his National Action Network supporters picketing its Orlando, Florida, headquarters.

Fine. Go protest over this, then. If you do, I’m going to ridicule you from my admittedly tiny perch here in the lefty “blogosphere” (still can’t get comfortable with that word, actually). And if it turns out that I’m in ideological unity for a change with the freepers and their online brethren whom I usually loathe and despise, then so be it.

Of course, you can protest anyone and anything with impunity, Al, because you’re perfect (by the way, have you heard from Tawana Brawley lately?).

The one aspect of the 2008 Democratic presidential primary that I have to admit I’ve enjoyed is your absence from the stage! If there was one thing that continually disgusted me in past elections, it was the fact that none of the candidates would call you out for being a buffoon and an expert at self-promotion because they needed the black vote to win the election.

However, with Barack Obama running, you automatically lost any faux legitimacy you may have ever had in the eyes of some men and women of color (though I would have loved to actually see you on stage with Obama so he could have oratorically taken you apart).

To change the subject slightly, I have to admit that the timing of this latest Sharpton mess is particularly bad for your humble narrator, since it comes on the heels of New Jersey’s recent apology for slavery, hence my admitted crankiness here.

And what exactly is it that that’s supposed to accomplish, other than “grease the skids” for someone in New Jersey government to mention the “R” word (“reparations,” that is)? If someone does that, I hope they get hooted down as quickly as Reverend Al should be.

You want to talk apologies? Fine. I’m waiting for the City of Philadelphia to apologize for the Nativist Riots of 1844, since I’m an Irish-Catholic descendant who grew up in “The City of Brotherly Love.”

But just to let you know, Al, I don’t plan to protest over it outside of a government building or place of business. You see, I’ll be doing something else.

I’ll be working.

For my employer.

Getting paid.

And not feeling sorry for myself.

Why don’t you try it sometime?

Update: I think this is utter crap.

Wanna Watch "Seven Days In May"?

This post from Chris Bowers at Open Left, echoing Matt Yglesias, tells us that the winner of the Repug primary in New Hampshire, along with his fellow party mate Joe Lieberman, believes we…

…should adjust those (Iraq troop) numbers based on conditions on the ground and the recommendations of our commanders…first and foremost, Gen. Petraeus, who above all others has proven that he knows how to steer this war to a successful outcome.

Can someone please notify me when this “successful outcome” in Iraq is finally achieved? Because only then will I make a final judgment as to whether or not Petraeus and our military leadership have been successful (as opposed to those in our political leadership who aren’t so stupidly willing to cede the power they were endowed by virtue of their election to public office; actually, the character played by Burt Lancaster wouldn’t even have to stage a coup since “Senator Honor And Virtue” and his “independent” flunky would hand the power over to him).

And in other war news (here)…

Democrats are likely to try again to set a timetable on troop withdrawals from Iraq when Congress reconvenes this year. But with Republicans sticking firmly behind the president, Democrats know it is unlikely such measures will pass for now.

Some moderates say they hope 2008 will be the year of compromise, in which Democratic leaders will agree to swing behind softer anti-war legislation in a bid to entice moderate Republicans. Republican support for legislation is crucial because Democrats hold a narrow margin of control in Congress and lack the two-thirds support to overcome a veto.

Here we go with the same pathetic song-and-dance we heard about this time last year from Repugs like John Warner and Huckleberry Graham about how they might be persuaded to support a timeline for troop withdrawal (and nothing changed, of course).

Dear God…

Bear-ly Tolerable Freeper Attacks On Global Warming

The Philadelphia Inquirer, in its “Lightning Round” editorial segment today, actually made a good observation concerning the delay of Bushco’s Interior Department (under Dirk Kempthorne, who is at least as big of a disaster for the environment as his predecessor Gale Norton) to list the polar bear as an endangered species, allowing the Minerals Management Service to “open up nearly 30 million acres of Alaskan waters to oil and gas leasing in the heart of polar bear country.”

By the way, the head of the Minerals Management Service is Randall Luthi, who rose within the Repugs ranks with the mentoring of “Deadeye Dick” Cheney (both came from Wyoming). Need I say more?

And in this related New York Times opinion column from last Saturday, Alaska Repug governor Sarah Palin makes a few disingenuous arguments against listing the polar bear as endangered, including this one…

“(It would be) based on uncertain modeling of possible effects.”

That’s some fancy language that translates to “junk science,” by the way. And Palin also states that “the Endangered Species Act is not the correct tool to address climate change,” a sentence which, to me, is breathtaking in its stupidity.

And here with the point of view of the reality-based community is Kassie Siegel, climate program director at the Center for Biological Diversity…

(Siegel) said all science has a degree of uncertainty but that uncertainty is very low for the polar bear.

Polar bears eat mostly seals and other fatty marine animals that they hunt from sea ice. The bears prefer to hunt from ice that hangs over shallow continental shelf waters, which contain more prey than deeper waters offshore.

But summer sea ice in the polar bears' Arctic habitat is shrinking and retreating farther and farther from the coastline, which crimps the bears' ability to forage efficiently. Some bears are starving to death.

Scientists believe human-caused global warming is contributing to the decline in sea ice habitat.

Saving polar bears, therefore, requires human action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, Siegel noted. But taking such action is a political decision.

"We know what we have to do to save polar bears," she said. "We just have to start doing it."

And to help, click here (and a reminder for our dear corporate media cousins appears below).

Somewhere Dubya Is Loved At Last

Yes, we all know that George W. Milhous Bush is currently in the Middle East playing president and pretending to care about negotiating peace between Israel and Palestine (even predicting a peace treaty by the time he is FINALLY out of office), but I’d just like to take a moment and contrast this frantic, last-minute scramble by a highly unpopular head of state with the more methodical approach of a president who actually knew what he was doing on this vital issue (aided in a huge way by Anwar Al Sadat of Egypt, who ultimately died because of his recognition of Israel).

As this Wikipedia article about the Camp David Accords tells us…

(Former President Jimmy) Carter also wasted no time in visiting the heads-of-state on whom he would have to rely to make any peace agreement feasible. By the end of his first year in office, he had already met with (Sadat), King Hussein of Jordan, Hafez al-Assad of Syria, and Yitzhak Rabin of Israel. Carter's and (Secretary of State Cyrus) Vance's exploratory meetings gave him a basic plan for reinvigorating the peace process based on the Geneva Conference and Israeli withdrawal on all fronts, including the West Bank.

Of course, concerning Camp David, the call for West Bank withdrawal came in 1977-1978, and 30 years later, it is still being negotiated with the Israelis (noted here).

Also, I just want to note the following paragraph of the New York Times’ coverage on this story...

Mr. Bush’s visit was only the second by an American president to the Palestinian territories. Bill Clinton visited Gaza and the West Bank in 1998 during a previous push for peace that was overshadowed by his impending impeachment concerning his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

God, was it really necessary to point that out (seeing as how it has so much to do with that area of the world - not)? Again??!!

And not that I’m actually taking President Nutball’s antics seriously, but Atrios noted here that Dubya’s record on foreign policy predictions in particular leaves a bit to be desired.

The post title, by the way, refers to the reception Dubya received in Tel Aviv when he arrived. I heard about it on NPR (can’t find a link at the moment), and it doesn’t surprise me in the least; Israel should love him seeing as how this president launched his proxy war in Iraq on their behalf.

Update: Oh, and I'm...umm...honored (yeah, that's it, honored) to be on the same wave length here as The Onion (h/t kos - actually I really am; some very indelicate but true commentary here).

Wednesday Political Stuff

"Straight Talk McCain" wants his own "Hundred Years War," I see (aren't you proud of your vote for this clod, you Granite State Repugs? And I'll take a shot at Chris Shays another time)...



...and Chris Matthews has ALREADY provided us the stupidest pundit blatherings of 2008 so far (h/t Atrios, and here is a response from Molly Ivors to the "Hillary treatment" from Maureen Dowd that applies to Tweety also; MoDo was another offender today, and here is something we can do about it).