Good News For The Admiral

I just finished reading this column from Joe Klein of Time, and I have to admit that I’m shocked; it is a very fair and even-handed piece on the 7th District U.S. Congressional election between Joe Sestak and Crazy Curt Weldon (funny how people like Klein, Richard Cohen, David Broder and even George Will can do this type of reporting when it suits them).

Also, “The Good Joe” has moved up to #13 in the Hotline Race rankings, and analyst Larry Sabato has moved the race from his “leans Republican” category to “toss-up” (lets keep this up for Patrick also of course and put Fitzpatrick in the same category as Weldon).

A "One-Two" Punch On Mikey

A bunch of letters appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times today supporting Patrick Murphy, which has definitely made my day thus far. I probably won't be able to get to all of them, but this one truly stood out.

Mike Fitzpatrick touts his independence from the Bush administration and the Republican congressional leadership when, in reality, many of his votes breaking with Bush or the Republican leadership were cast when his vote didn’t matter, i.e., the bill was a lost cause or the Republican margin for passage was large enough that his vote wasn’t needed.

Fitzpatrick simply has not been proactive in doing anything about the abuses of the Bush administration or the Republican leadership. Since 2000, corporate taxes have dropped by a third. Despite a corporate tax rate of 35 percent, it’s reported that nearly 95 percent of corporations pay less than 5 percent of their income in taxes, as reported by the Los Angeles Times on April 11, 2004.

The highest income brackets received the greatest personal income tax reduction under the Bush tax bills, placing more of the tax burden on the middle class and increasing the federal deficit to an unprecedented level. Fitzpatrick has supported this tax plan and, to my knowledge, has not called for any congressional investigations of pork-barrel abuses.

Let’s also look at the response to Hurricane Katrina. According to an Aug. 24th article on msnbc.com, 70 percent of the federal contracts were awarded without competitive bids. A report on National Public Radio broadcast on Aug. 29th stated that rents in the Biloxi area have doubled precluding middle and lower income residents from returning. And while the casinos and other businesses have gotten millions in aid, the funds earmarked for public housing and other housing projects for middle-income families have been tied up and not even distributed, NPR reported. Other abuses of wasteful spending have been well-documented and reported by the media.

Fitzpatrick and other Republicans have not called for any special investigations of this enormous waste. In fact, on two occasions, Fitzpatrick actually voted against efforts to investigate firms accused of abuse, fraud, or excessive profiteering in regard to Iraq and Katrina contracts (House Roll Call Vote 584, Nov. 9, 2005. House Roll Call Vote 40, March 15, 2006). This is a dereliction of duty.

Fitzpatrick’s continued support of the Bush economic policies and the wasteful spending of hard-earned low and middle-income tax revenues do not entitle him to re-election. Patrick Murphy will support accountability for congressional leadership and much-needed tax relief for middle-income taxpayers.

James Erb
Upper Makefield, PA

And this Guest Opinion appeared as well.

With the fifth anniversary of 9/11 so recently behind us, I fear that, rather than honoring the memory of the nearly 3,000 innocent victims of terrorism, our leaders in Washington are instead further sacrificing the lives of soldiers and civilians in a futile effort to avoid the appearance of defeat.

With over 2, 640 soldiers killed in Iraq, including 124 Pennsylvanians, and over 330 American soldiers killed in Afghanistan, America has now lost more soldiers than people killed on September 11th. Additionally, nearly 20,000 American soldiers have been injured in Iraq. Largely unnoticed or unmentioned are the more than 130 American civilians and 41,000 Iraqi civilians confirmed dead as a result of our military intervention in Iraq. Some estimates place the number of Iraqi civilians killed at over 100,000.

Despite the Bush administration’s predictions, few greeted us as liberators. And, perhaps due to the insufficient number of troops, the war in Iraq has not been nearly as quick as predicted. Not only have we paid a very heavy price in terms of casualties, the war has cost the American people over $312 billion (an amount that, by some estimates, could have been used to provide health insurance to over 186 million children for one year).

Despite the heroic actions and enormous sacrifices of our soldiers and civilians, as well as the high cost of these wars, Osama bin Laden remains free. Perhaps because, compared to the war in Iraq, we have spent relatively little in Afghanistan; only $89 billion.

Now that the alleged weapons of mass destruction have failed to materialize after exhaustive inspections, and any connection to 9/11 has been refuted by the 9/11 commission, the Bush administration has justified our continued sacrifice in Iraq as an effort to deliver democracy to a former dictatorship. I agree that this is a noble goal; however, the United States is not trusted in the Middle East. No matter how unjustified that view is, our leaders should have realized it and understood that our gift of Democracy would be viewed with suspicion, like the proverbial gift horse.

Furthermore, even assuming we were trusted, no one can deliver democracy to a country either unwilling or unable to accept it. Democracy is something that has to be yearned for, fought for and earned. As a result, we have left Iraq less stable than it was before we intervened. Granted, a murderous dictator has been unseated, which bodes well for the future of the Iraqi people and the world in general, but absent the trust of the Iraqi people we are unable to provide them with an effective alternative.

For all our country’s good intentions our troops, and the corporations we have placed in Iraq to rebuild it, are not trusted. The result is now we are a destabilizing factor in a country in danger of full-scale civil war.

Because our mere presence in Iraq is an instigator for insurgents, I believe the best way to avoid a civil war is to have a carefully planned withdrawal. Our soldiers have performed admirably, removing a despot and overseeing a democratic election.

This is one of the many reasons I support Patrick Murphy, the Democratic candidate for Congress. He has a viable plan; set a timeline for withdrawal of our troops with benchmarks, so that the Iraqis can step up and stand on their own to bring stability to Iraq. I believe this plan would avoid further chaos and killing in Iraq. I trust that Patrick Murphy, who spent seven months in Iraq as a soldier, knows what will work for that country better than Michael Fitzpatrick, a first-term congressman with no military service (like so many in this administration) who spent a day touring a military base in Iraq.

Let us rededicate our resources to finding Osama bin Laden, the real culprit behind 9/11 and many other atrocities, as well as to securing our country against another attack like 9/11. While we are at it we should also explore alternate energy sources so that we will not be beholden to those in the Middle East, many of whom either do not like us or do not trust us. After all, we are Americans. We have the ingenuity and the capability.

The author, Mark E. Hopkins, is a lower Southampton, PA supervisor.

I’m going to be honest; I think Hopkins is recycling some Democratic Party talking points a bit here, though he is fundamentally and overwhelmingly correct in his assessment. I think the Kerry-esque notion of Iraqis “standing up” could happen, but probably not in a context we’d prefer (with Iran as the benefactor of whatever Shia ruling institution takes over the vast majority of the country). Also, I think saying we’ll “redeploy” and “bring our people home” in the same breath is a bit disingenuous; some will come home, sure, as they should, but border redeployment will require something along the lines of our mediation in Kosovo, and the last I checked, we still had people in that area of the world (without that redeployment, we could be looking at a true regional war, and the $100-a-barrel-for-oil scenario of Trudy Rubin could become the hideous reality, to say nothing of the human cost which is more important).

Please understand, though, that this is nit-picking with a plan that both Patrick and John Kerry are putting forward that is a hell of a lot better than what we would face with Fitzpatrick returning to Congress continuing to parrot the Repug party line (for example, he STILL hasn’t criticized Rumsfeld for his recent remarks calling those who oppose the war “appeasers” suffering from “moral and intellectual confusion” – if he were reporting to a president who actually had a backbone, Dem or Repug, he would have been canned long ago).

As I said, though, Mark Hopkins and James Erb are absolutely right in their assessments (and as always, to help elect Patrick and put him to work for us, click here).

Update 9/20: And to see what kind of a job Dubya and his buddies have done after our troops have sacrificed so much, check this out from Brandoland (it's not pretty).

Declare The Pennies On Your Eyes

This fine letter in this morning’s Philadelphia Inquirer from Ben Burrows of Elkins Park got me to thinking (the letter appears below):

Arguably, the 1950s saw the greatest growth in the middle class in United States history. At that time, the highest incomes were taxed at 90 percent; federal and state estate taxes were nearly universal. By contrast, with today's flatter tax rates, executive salaries have accelerated out of control, while family income has been relatively stagnant. Why would you run away from a tax structure which gave us the greatest middle class growth and fostered the greatest team spirit among all the classes of American society?

I’ll admit that this is kind of a “water wet, sky blue” post, but I’ll try to provide some value with it.

This describes the report from the Congressional Budget Office in August 2004 confirming what we already learned long ago; namely, that the tax burden in this country has shifted dramatically under Bushco onto the middle class (it should have made a difference in the election, but I don’t recall exactly what happened – I don’t know if John Kerry and his people even knew about this or had anything to say), and this describes how the GOP spinmeisters usually play this stuff along the lines of “well, the rich are still paying more than their fair share” while not acknowledging the fact that a small percentage of an increase for people with higher incomes will take much less of a bite from earnings than it will if the same percentage increase is applied to someone who earns less (got that?).

However, instead of just harping about this, I want to mention this article written by John Irons, the director of tax and budget policy for the Center of American Progress, and John Podesta, the chief of staff for the Clinton Administration from 1998 to 2001 and the center’s director. Among the many good ideas in the article are requiring employers to pay taxes on payroll incomes over $90,000 (with payroll taxes identified as the most regressive part of our tax system), and addressing the so-called Alternative Minimum Tax, which is a “ticking time bomb” of sorts because more and more wage earners will be affected since the tax is not indexed for inflation.

I am hardly an expert on the tax code or the type of financial issues they discuss in the article, but fortunately Irons and Podesta are, so I highly encourage you to take a few minutes and read what they have to say.

Hit The Showers, Swannie

This link takes you to Little Ricky Santorum having a meltdown with reporters (and such a fine, “Christian” man using an expletive? For gosh sakes!), which I’m sure will help him tighten the race with Mr. Casey Jr. (uh huh…hat tip to HuffPo).

But what I really want to draw attention to is this quote from Lynn Swann Dive in his campaign (?) against incumbent Pa. governor Ed Rendell:

"We're going to take Ed Rendell out of Harrisburg forever, and -- make no mistake about it -- we intend to take him out, and he has given us every reason to take him out," Swann said.

Read this and weep, Swannie.

Sunday Video

My guess is that three of the guys in this band (the early version of Jethro Tull, about 1968) are Mick Abrahams, Glenn Cornick and Clive Bunker (along with Ian Anderson, I guess).

This song ("Some Day The Sun Won't Shine For You" from Tull's first album "This Was") fits my mood after watching that Eagles mess today and for other reasons.

Saturday Video

One of these days I should put up "Blister In The Sun," but for now, here's "Gone Daddy Gone," the other signature song from The Violent Femmes (1982, with a xylophone solo no less).

One More Video

When you think about punk in the late '70s with Elvis Costello, The Clash, Joe Jackson, Talking Heads and other great artists, just make sure you don't forget about The Jam with Paul Weller, which exploded out of the gate with this one ("In The City").

Friday Night Video

I honestly can't recall ever seeing a trumpet in rock before until this song (Cake with "The Distance"...so '90s, I know).

How Not To Mediate

John Edwards sent this communication about the tragedy of Darfur a few weeks ago, including the following excerpt:

Sudan began a genocide against tribes of small farmers in its Darfur region three years ago. Militia groups backed by the Sudanese government have slaughtered an estimated 400,000 people and driven 2.5 million people from their homes. U.N. troops are on their way, but will take at least five more months to arrive in Darfur.

…

The people of Darfur cannot wait five more months for U.N. troops to arrive. At the current rate of violence and destruction, another 30,000 civilians will die and another 300,000 people will become refugees over the next five months. In addition, as the international community stands by, violence and chaos is spreading to neighboring Chad and the Central African Republic. More than 100 Chadians were hacked to death in a single incident earlier this year.

I admire the African Union troops stationed in Darfur. They have done their jobs courageously and deserve the world's gratitude. But they need help. The African Union peacekeeping troops, which number just 7,000, have been unable to protect civilians or enforce a 2004 ceasefire. In the meantime, security has deteriorated dramatically.

And today, George Clooney said that the U.N. must act or it would be faced with “the first genocide of the 21st century” (Clooney has visited the region, and he spoke with Elie Wiesel on this urgent matter).

I provide this as background because I read an excellent column yesterday in the Inquirer on what the Bush Administration has done wrong on Darfur written by a man named John Prendergast, who is senior adviser for the International Crisis Group in Washington.

I just returned from rebel-held areas of Darfur on a trip with Scott Pelley of CBS's 60 Minutes, and I found that the crisis is spiraling out of control: Violence is increasing, malnutrition is soaring, and access to life-saving aid is shrinking. The Bush administration has made some noise about Darfur over the last two years, but it has made a series of deadly mistakes that have served only to make matters worse.

The administration's first deadly mistake is that while it helped broker a peace agreement in May, its negotiator left after only one rebel group signed, leaving at least two other rebel groups wanting more detail in the deal. The Khartoum regime is now partnering with the signatory group to launch a major offensive against the nonsignatories, thus deepening the divisions in Darfur.

The U.S. negotiator was Robert Zoellick, by the way.

Second, the United States and its partners did not make explicit in the peace deal the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping operation to oversee implementation. U.S. officials took verbal promises from Khartoum as sufficient, which the regime has since renounced. Without a U.N. force, Darfurian displaced and refugee populations have no prospect of protection.

The third mistake was not ensuring sufficient international involvement in the dismantling of the deadly Janjaweed militia structures. The task was left to the very entity that arms the Janjaweed, the Khartoum regime. Without real international participation in the dismantling, no displaced Darfurian will ever go home.

Fourth, the United States has politically supported the rebel group that signed the peace deal, including having President Bush meet the group's leader. This faction has since effectively become a government militia that has been responsible for gross human-rights violations.

Fifth, after the senior U.S. official who helped negotiate the partial peace took a job on Wall Street, almost his entire team departed. For these last four critical months, State Department officials have opposed the naming of a presidential envoy to clean up the mess and make Darfur a genuine priority.

Sixth, the United States and Europeans have left the African Union force in Darfur in a state of limbo, not giving it the requisite resources and political support needed to protect the people of Darfur.

Seventh, the United States crafted a U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized targeted sanctions in early 2005, but has since imposed sanctions on only one regime official, a retired air force commander. This leaves Khartoum with the correct impression that there will be no accountability.

Eighth, the United States has not provided information and intelligence to the International Criminal Court as the latter conducts its investigation of the war crimes committed in Darfur. Sharing such material could be a critical part of leverage on Khartoum as it would face the prospect of accelerated indictments of senior officials.

Ninth, the United States invited the security chief of the regime to CIA headquarters in Virginia, thus cementing the relationship with a man believed to be the architect of the ethnic-cleansing campaign in Darfur. This tells Khartoum that as long as they are "with us" in the war on terror, they can continue to pursue what the U.S. president himself has labeled genocide in Darfur.

Tenth, and most recently, the United States continues to offer incentives rather than pressures in its bid to change Khartoum's behavior and induce it to support a U.N. force. An administration official went to Khartoum recently and offered President Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir a meeting with Bush and discussed the possibility of removing some of the U.S.-imposed sanctions. If we have learned anything over the last 15 years, it is this: Being soft on perpetrators of crimes against humanity does little to alter their behavior.

The administration's press statements and offers of incentives, and U.N. Security Council resolutions without real punitive actions have left the impression in Khartoum that Washington and the rest of the international community are all bark and no bite. "Constructive engagement" sometimes works, but it is making no impact here. Until the international stance, led by the United States, becomes much tougher, Khartoum can be expected to go on relentlessly targeting the civilian population in Darfur.

I’ll save the snark since this is a humanitarian crisis as opposed to political nonsense (though that played a part here to be sure). I’ll only add that you can click here to access the Save Darfur coalition and help however you can.

More Gas For Your Fire, Benny?

I know he’s the leader of my faith, but no one on earth is infallible, and I would say that this speech shows judgment which, at best, can be called questionable.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to put on my “tin foil hat” as it were and wonder if this is another attempt by the former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger to ratchet up tensions which plays into the hands of Bushco in an election year (I mean, he’s no stranger to doing that sort of thing, as witnessed here).

Also, this comprehensive article by Chris Floyd explains some tricky dealings between the Pope and the Bush family, Neil in particular, and their involvement with a Swiss management trust masquerading as a religious charity (a real potboiler of an article, I must say).

If it is truly the intention of this pope to act in accordance with an agenda that favors Bushco, then he must be called on it. Men and women of conscience should do no less.

Update 9/17: Fair enough...

Update 9/18: Despite how I feel about what the pope said, this sickening act of cowardice is worse than that beyond anything in my memory (it's hard to communicate my revulsion for shooting a 60-year-old nun in the back).

Go Ahead, Fence Him In

I tried to find the following story from the Courier Times web site, but I was unable to do so (the site has improved somewhat lately, so I promise I won’t take a shot at it). So, for this reason, I must link directly to the web site of Mike Fitzpatrick from here so I can highlight the following quote regarding Mikey’s vote on something called the Secure Fence Act (as opposed to an “insecure” fence needing constant reaffirmation I guess…and how exactly will this help Pennsylvania?):

“Terrorists know of our vulnerabilities and seek to exploit them,” Fitzpatrick said. “We don’t know who among these illegal aliens may be migrant workers and who may be terrorists. Congress must act to stem this flood and improve our security.”

Oh, sure; we’ve just had a “flood” of terrorist attacks from migrant workers in this country since 9/11, haven’t we? Yes sir, I can see them strapping whatever possessions they may have onto themselves including all manner of explosives, negotiating the hard trek over our southwest border, and then somehow traveling all of the way to the 8th Congressional district just so they can blow up themselves and take as many of us with them as they can.

Is it my imagination, or is Mikey starting to become a bit unhinged?

Besides, if this Republican congress were really interested in border security, they would have addressed this issue in some intelligent manner (a stretch, I know) right after the attacks we remembered a few days ago and not waited five years until many of them were running for re-election.

I tend to listen to a position on this from a politician who actually has a lick of common sense, so please allow me to present the point of view of U.S. Rep Allyson Schwartz of Philadelphia (noted in the Courier Times story on this available only in print at the moment):

“Congressional Republicans may talk tough on securing America’s borders, but the reality is that time and time again Republicans have voted against tough border measures, such as increasing the number of border patrol agents.”

I think the framing of this whole issue is utterly ridiculous. The problem is that, when employers hire illegal/undocumented/whatever workers, they don’t do their due diligence, so these people end up stuck here with nowhere to go and no one to help them but the U.S. taxpayer. And no fence will ever be worth anything if employers don’t police themselves on this first and stop this practice.

Find A Clue, Bob

I am having a harder time mustering support for Mr. Bob Casey, Jr. than you can possibly imagine.

He gave a speech at Catholic University yesterday where, according to the Bucks County Courier Times, he emphasized one of the age-old right wing chestnuts; namely, that the Democratic Party (always with the “ic,” as Hendrik Hertzberg pointed out) would not let his father speak at the party’s convention in 1992 because Casey Sr. opposed abortion.

As Atrios says, zombie lies never die (especially when uttered by someone who is supposed to know better…please excuse the stuff in the linked article on Jim No-Talent and his supposed “independence” from Dubya, and by the way, vote for Claire McCaskill, any of you fine people in Missouri who may be reading this).

Mr. Casey Jr., let me point out now and forever that, if you somehow end up losing this senatorial election to a human nematode like Rick Santorum, I will make it my personal mission to hound you at this space for the rest of your days.

Why Rummy Is Still Here

I’ve been meaning to get to this (a week late which can be like a year doing this, I know), but for the record, let’s note that we are still saddled with Don (“The Secretary Of Defense You Have”) Rumsfeld because of Repug Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska (pictured).

And by the way, did you know that, according to this Sourcewatch article, Stevens is actually third in line to become President if something happens to Dubya, and then Cheney, and finally Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, since Stevens is president pro tempore of the Senate? So we’re totally screwed regardless unless the Democrats take at least one house of Congress in a few weeks (among the many reasons to can the Repugs, that should be on our list also).

Last Wednesday (9/6), the motion to fire Rumsfeld was defeated by Stevens with a procedural move. Looks like Ted “got that Internet that his staff sent to him” in time to save Rummy’s butt.

And with a quote like that, it’s not a surprise that Stevens is “totally out to lunch” on the issue of net neutrality (I may have something more to say about that later), though the big problem is that he is in charge of the Senate Commerce Committee which has a lot to do with online oversight. To me, that’s like putting Tom DeLay in charge of a task force on ethical reform in government.

Well, did you know that Stevens also held up Defense funding and Katrina relief to get and get an amendment for drilling in the ANWR in December of last year (according to Sourcewatch)? And he (along with Robert Byrd, unfortunately) also tried to block development of an online database to track federal grants and contracts as part of the never-ending battle to rein in government pork (including Stevens’ infamous “bridge to nowhere”).

As Sourcewatch also notes, Stevens was first elected to the Senate from Alaska in 1968 (God, is he the best that great state can do?), so I’m quite sure there’s a treasure trove of stuff out there on this guy like this, including that tidy little $29 million earmark for the "Alaska Fisheries Marketing Board," chaired by his son Ben.

I don’t have much of anything else to add, except that you should be wary of any politician who poses with Marvel Comics superheroes wearing a “Hulk” tie (thanks to Rising Hegemon…you couldn’t make this stuff up, could you - and doesn't that kid look so thrilled?).

Heat Is Rising, Past Is Calling

From all accounts, Pete, Roger and the New Who put on a smash-up show at the Wachovia Center last night (well done, lads), so, with that in mind (and hopefully Pete's ears are OK), here is a slightly abbreviated version of "Substitute" from the "Mod" days.

(A YouTube commenter liked Roger's shirt, but I think Pete's "arrow" jacket was hip also.)

Thanks, Keith

A non-political post coming up…

You would be hard pressed to find an individual who was angrier than I was when the Philadelphia Flyers traded Rod Brind’Amour to the Carolina Hurricanes five years ago. I could not believe that even Bob Clarke would trade one of the great heart-and-soul players in the storied sports history in this area (including Clarke way up on that list in his day) for some overrated, narcissistic athlete who had done nothing but hold out for more money from his two previous employers (Carolina, which necessitated the trade) and the Detroit Red Wings.

This has to be it, I thought. Even Ed Snider has to realize that Clarke needs to find another line of work.

Well, Clarke is still in his present job, having done some things well while screwing up countless others (including, most recently, the trade of Michal Handzus to the Chicago Blackhawks, which I believe will be the repeat of the Brind’Amour scenario – I hereby predict that, in five years, Chicago will win the Stanley Cup with Handzus as captain…we’ll see).

But back to the overhyped forward for a minute, OK?

His only distinction in his early tenure with the team was the fact that he was instrumental in getting former coach (and another Flyer legend) Bill Barber fired, and I thought that even if he was right and Barber really wasn’t that good of a coach, he had a hell of a lot of nerve to act the way he did.

But after that episode, I think Keith Primeau got the message, because he totally changed his approach to the game, and it showed in his play. He worked harder than just about anyone, did anything he was told to do by Ken Hitchcock (who replaced Barber), and helped the younger players on the team, particularly the forwards. Also, he became a defensive specialist, trying to neutralize the top players of other teams. Doing well in a role like that is proof positive that you care about the team first and aren’t preoccupied with your own statistics. Basically, he carried the responsibility of team captain as completely as anyone could have asked, and his performance against Tampa Bay in the 2004 playoffs was truly inspirational in a losing-in-seven-game cause (Tampa Bay would win the Stanley Cup, with Barber having joined the organization after leaving the Flyers).

But the head injuries caught up with him in a sport that doesn’t properly value the safety of its own athletes (against Toronto, against Tampa Bay in all likelihood in the playoff series in which he excelled – imagine what it must have taken to accomplish that – and finally against Montreal a year ago from an elbow by Alexander Perezhogin). He has never been able to recover completely from his concussion history, and he is expected to retire in a day or so.

I wish him luck and I want to say thanks for his contribution to the team. Don’t even think about trying to return any more – as much as the Flyers could use you when healthy, I think it’s plain by now that we won’t see that day, and concentrate on the rest of your life with your family instead.

Now if only Eric Lindros would get the message…

Fight With Patrick

This letter to the editor appeared in the Bucks County Courier Times today.

Young parents, struggling to provide for the needs of their children in today’s difficult economy, are going to face an $8.5 trillion national debt supported by Republican Mike Fitzpatrick. The Republican Congress, so insensitive to the financial stress which average citizens have to endure, even doled out millions in pork barrel spending and tax breaks for the wealthy.

Democrat Patrick Murphy hears our cry for change. He wants parents to be able to keep alive the American Dream for their children. Murphy wants to stop the escalating cost of the national debt.

We need new priorities and change in leadership. We need to elect Democrat Patrick for Congress, a man who is prepared to roll up his sleeves and fight for the needs and the rights of the people of Pennsylvania.

Penny Paton
Middletown, PA

Amen, sister.

And by the way, this “story” also appeared today (with the blessings of the Courier Times editorial board, of course…it is beyond childish and doesn’t deserve a response).

And as far as Iraq goes, let's let Patrick and Mikey speak for themselves on this, OK?



As always, to help Patrick, click here.

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (9/14)

As reported in last Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer, here is how Philadelphia-area members of Congress were recorded on major roll-call votes last week (light agenda of stuff).

House

Horse slaughter. The House passed, 263-146, and sent to the Senate a bill (HR 503) to outlaw the slaughter of horses in the United States for human consumption overseas. The bill sets fines up to $5,000 and maximum jail time of two years.

A yes vote was to pass the bill.

Voting yes: Robert E. Andrews (D., N.J.), Robert A. Brady (D., Pa.), Michael N. Castle (R., Del.), Charles W. Dent (R., Pa.), Chaka Fattah (D., Pa.), Michael G. Fitzpatrick (R., Pa.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.), H. James Saxton (R., N.J.), Allyson Schwartz (D., Pa.), Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.) and Curt Weldon (R., Pa.).

Voting no: Tim Holden (D., Pa.).

Holden is currently assigned to the House Agriculture Committee, where, according to the Open Secrets link, “…active donors with business before the committee include the poultry and forestry interests, ranchers, and agribusiness giants like Archer-Daniels-Midland.”

I’m glad that we’re not going to be sending the remains of Mr. Ed or My Friend Flicka to some other country – I mean, if somebody in Azerbaijan wants to do that, for example, then let them kill their own damn horse. And Holden stands up for a constituency here in what turned out to be a losing cause, which makes him look like a winner for the next time his committee hears a proposal for legislation and “one back needs to scratch the other,” if you know what I mean.

By the way, with elections looming, look for our esteemed members of Congress to debate pabulum such as this as they work extra hard to keep lulling voters to sleep before November 7th.

Senate

Defense spending. Senators passed, 98-0, a bill to appropriate $470 billion for defense in fiscal 2007. The bill funds a 2.2 percent military pay raise and includes $50 billion for six months of actions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bill (HR 5631) goes to conference with the House.

All Philadelphia-area senators voted for the bill.

I wonder what the "over-under" is on how quickly Dubya comes back for a supplemental appropriation to this one?

Iraq. Senators killed, 54-44, an amendment to HR 5631 (above) requiring the administration to report to Congress every three months on whether Iraq is in civil war and, if so, to detail plans for protecting U.S. troops from the cross fire.

A yes vote opposed the amendment.

Voting yes: Santorum and Specter.

Voting no: Biden, Carper and Lautenberg.

Not voting: Menendez.

Oh, but Arlen and Ricky had to oppose this, you see; it was sponsored by Ted Kennedy, and after all, what does he know about military service, right?

(And by the way, Senator, welcome to the fight for Net Neutrality!)

Your Republican congress hard at work, doing the people’s business as always...

Cluster bombs. Senators rejected, 70-30, an amendment to HR 5631 (above) that would have barred spending for producing or selling cluster bombs until such time as the Pentagon sets rules to prevent their use near civilians.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Carper and Menendez.

Voting no: Biden, Lautenberg, Santorum and Specter.

Great idea sponsored by Rep. Dianne Feinstein (maybe a message to Israel also since they used them in the recent war with Hezbollah?), but once again, Biden casts a bad vote (how lame is it that Carper actually looks good this time), and I think Lautenberg understood that this could be a black eye against a core constituency, so...

Osama bin Laden. Senators approved, 96-0, an amendment to reactivate a CIA unit set up after 9/11 to hunt down Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders. The vote added $200 million to HR 5631 (above) to reactivate the unit.

A yes vote backed the amendment.

Voting yes: Biden, Carper, Lautenberg, Menendez and Specter.

Not voting: Santorum.

How about an amendment telling Dubya he’s got 90 days to get him or he’ll be impeached for sure (hey, I can dream, can’t I?).

Iraq public relations. Senators killed, 51-44, an amendment to bar the Pentagon from spending funds in HR 5631 (above) on a $20 million public relations contract it has awarded to generate positive news coverage about Iraq.

A yes vote was to allow the contract to go forward.

Voting yes: Specter.

Voting no: Biden, Carper, Lautenberg and Menendez.

Not voting: Santorum.

Menendez was actually the sponsor of this amendment; hats off to him for trying to maintain fiscal sanity from this plutocracy (and I would accuse Arlen Specter of doing a “two-step” again, but with his nearly-successful attempt at legalizing Dubya’s warrantless spying, unfortunately, I don’t think he’s even bothering to “shift to the left” at all – kind of the real-world version of Chancellor Palpatine turning into Darth Sidious for good in “Revenge Of The Sith”…obligatory geeky “Star Wars” rant mode off.)

Besides, maybe this will be a good thing at that, since I heard that “Baghdad Bob” needs to find permanent work once and for all.

This week. The House will consider a bill on prison industries, while the Senate will debate port security.

For information on how to contact your member of Congress, go here.

Bad Joe Don't Know

Though I tried to avoid commenting on Dubya’s speech on Monday night (which was fitting propaganda to accompany a program on ABC/Disney that was essentially the same thing), I confess that I didn’t try hard enough and came across this story from CNN today.

(By the way, if you want a dose of the truly unpleasant reality of the situation in Iraq, I would recommend Trudy Rubin’s column in yesterday’s Philadelphia Inquirer. It was one of the most depressing reads I’ve ever had, but this is the reality, and it would be nice if our government would act like adults for a change and talk to us the same way.)

And buried way down in the CNN story is this quote from Repug U.S. House Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina (in response to a remark from Nancy Pelosi where she said capturing bin Laden wouldn’t make us any safer – though that is highly desirable of course – echoing some Repug comments along those lines…we know about the other Joe Wilson of course, who is the husband of Valerie Plame, but this guy is something completely different):

"That quote clearly indicates a misunderstanding of how important and what a symbol Osama bin Laden is," (Wilson) said.

"I actually thought that the Democrats would pursue a policy of national security almost identical to what the president's proposing of taking the war to the enemy," he said. "But now I understand ... that indeed they would, I believe, cut and run. I believe that they would appease."

Congressman, bin Laden is a hell of a lot more than a symbol (maybe that’s what he is to you). He’s quite probably the most notorious terrorist of our generation who deserves nothing less than death.

So, with Wilson’s words still fresh in my mind and starting to induce nausea (which is in keeping with prior behavior, as noted here at Source Watch under “Positions and Views” for a little June 2005 spat with Henry Waxman), I decided to do some searching for anything he has written previously on this subject, and I came across this item from a web site called Military Training Technology (I will give Wilson credit for having served, but it begins and ends there).

After the White House recently released to the public a 16-page letter from Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s deputy in al-Qaida, to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida’s leader in Iraq, the American people got another first-hand look at terrorists’ ability to constantly evolve in the global war on terrorism. In the letter, Zawahiri specifically details al-Qaida’s point-by-point plan to expel American forces from Iraq, and to establish the country under supreme radical Islamic rule. His words serve as a chilling reminder of the challenges our troops face as they continue to fight a sophisticated and technologically savvy enemy.

I tried to find this letter through Google, but all of the hits I got were for freeper chat rooms where I needed to log in, and to be honest, I have neither the time nor desire to do that.

Oh, and by the way, the prior paragraph is deceptive in that it implies to someone historically impaired that Zarqawi had been running the show in Iraq prior to our invasion, which was not true of course. That person would be Saddam Hussein, and as noted in this Washington Post story:

Far from aligning himself with al-Qaeda and Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Hussein repeatedly rebuffed al-Qaeda's overtures and tried to capture Zarqawi, the (recently declassified) report (by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence) said.

Back to Wilson...

The global war on terrorism is unlike any other war in our nation’s history, and U.S. troops fortunately have the greatest technological advantage. As readers of this magazine, you are well aware of the daily advancements that make our troops lighter, faster and safer in today’s war.

Congress plays an active oversight role to ensure that the Department of Defense is able to quickly deliver the most efficient military technology to troops without being bogged down in red tape. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee and a father of three sons serving in the military (including one who served for a year in Iraq), I take this responsibility seriously.

Tell me another one, Joe.

From the moment our troops entered Iraq, they have adapted quickly to the enemies’ ever-changing warfare tactics. After the fall of Baghdad, terrorists began targeting coalition forces with improvised explosive devices (IEDs) as our troops patrolled the streets of Iraq. When soldiers attempted to overcome these attacks, terrorists were able to defeat our countermeasures.

From this article (including the following paragraphs in particular)...

“…even with these proven technologies (in ballistic protection and IED signal jamming), it's hard not to get the feeling that bomb-stopping isn't anywhere close to the top of the Pentagon priority list. Yes, an extra $250 million was sent over to the Joint IED Defeat Task Force in October, to buy more jammers. I assume that's on top of the agency's $1.2 billion per year budget. But even with all that extra cash, only a slim minority of American troops on the ground – (possibly) less than 15% -- will get the jammers, which are one of the few proven methods for actually keeping the bombs from going off.

And remember: getting these jammers to frontline troops helps in the war after Iraq, too. If IEDs continue to be this effective, you can bet, for the next decade or two, guerilla groups will start jury-rigging some bombs as soon as U.S. (forces) land.

Back to Wilson again...

Under the leadership of Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-CA, the House Armed Services Committee responded to this challenge by ensuring that necessary armor kits were sent to Iraq. We provided the funding, collaborated with federal research laboratories, partnered with companies and learned a valuable lesson: to win this war, we must stay technologically on the offensive.

I give Hunter some credit for trying to make sure the vehicles for our troops are armored properly (Hunter has a personal interest because his son has served in Iraq), but this quote from a USA Today article in May sums up the problem as far as I’m concerned.

"The enemy adapts to everything we do," said military analyst Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute think tank in Arlington, Va.

Yep, that’s what happens in war unfortunately (and by the way, Rep. Hunter, stop using our troops to buttress your support for Dubya’s failed, illegal invasion).

We took the process one step further by providing crucial funding for jammers, which have the capability to render roadside explosive devices useless. After the Army reported in March 2005 that it had fielded 20 percent of the validated theater requirement for jammers, the committee authorized $161 million from the Iraq Freedom Fund to increase IED jammer production. Additionally, the House requested that $60 million be added to the FY05 supplemental request for jammers.

Once more, from the defensetech article...

Yes, an extra $250 million was sent over to the Joint IED Defeat Task Force in October, to buy more jammers. I assume that's on top of the agency's $1.2 billion per year budget. But even with all that extra cash, only a slim minority of American troops on the ground – (possibly) less than 15% -- will get the jammers, which are one of the few proven methods for actually keeping the bombs from going off.

And back to Wilson again...

Congress also increased protection for American troops by providing $5 billion for the Tactical Wheel Vehicle armoring initiative. When my son was serving in Iraq, his convoy came under fire twice and, fortunately, his unit survived both attacks. His two close calls are a vivid reminder of the critical importance of up-armoring military vehicles.

Well, that’s a good thing all right. But as noted here...

Archie Massicotte, president of military and government business at International Truck and Engine said, “the Humvee has served a great life for the military for 20 some years. I think what they’re finding is that we’re fighting battles now in Iraq, and they’re using it as a tactical wheeled vehicle. And it was never intended to be a tactical wheeled vehicle,” he said...

The question of armor—how much is needed, when to use it and the trade-offs in engine power, weight and carrying capacity it entails—will be a technological challenge for any proposed follow-on vehicle, experts said...

So based on this article written in February of this year, it sounds like a bond fide tactical wheeled vehicle is still being designed, when Wilson makes it sound like it’s a matter of funding an existing program (the word “initiative” stuck at the end of the sentence is the most important clue). If I had a son or daughter on the ground in that mess over there or knew someone who did, the only thing I’d care about is when this vehicle would be deployed.

I have basically nothing else to add to Wilson’s column at this point, except to point out that the Victory in Iraq Caucus, of which Wilson is a co-founder, is described in this article as “a group of 118 Republican lawmakers.” I haven’t been able to identify who all of these people are thus far (can probably guess some of them, but not all).

So, with his rhetoric implying that Democrats would “cut and run” since they are “appeasers” who “conduct guerilla warfare on American troops,” Wilson tries to set himself up as some sort of Repug protector of our military and our country, promoting peace and victory in The Global Now And Forever and Ever You Better Goddamn Believe It You Bedwetting Liberal War On Terror.

But by implying a relationship between Saddam Hussein and Abu Musab al Zarqawi that didn’t exist, and by failing to report that mission critical battlefield programs are being cut by Congress from the DoD budget (and those for IED jamming and ballistic protection aren’t being funded properly anyway), and by implying that tactical wheeled vehicles properly armored are available for our troops right now as opposed to existing in the minds of engineers as unfinished theoretical concepts at this point, Wilson is promoting no one but himself (and that goes for the rest of this “gang of 118” also).

The Yellow Rose Loses Its Bloom

Our deepest sympathies and condolences go out to the family and friends of Ann Richards this morning (I'm sure the tributes and remembrances will start shortly, and I'll try to keep up with them).

Via Atrios, here is her speech at the 1988 Democratic National Convention.

Update: Here's the first one from Martin Lewis at HuffPo (fewer words is better, I keep telling myself).

Update 9/15: I somehow knew this column would be forthcoming, and I'm glad it was (I hope Molly is well also).

Update 9/16: Bubba was and still is a class act with this stuff, but most importantly, he helped give Richards the sendoff she deserved.

More Music For Our Times

"Your Time Has Come" by Audioslave (not really a messsage song per se, but just kind of wondering about things that are generally screwed up I guess - lyrics here).