Friday Videos

Congratulations to The Police on getting back together for the Grammys on Sunday (here's "Invisible Sun")...



...Happy Birthday to Donovan Leitch ("Catch The Wind," from the "flower power" days)...



...Happy Birthday also (belatedly) to Simon Phillips of Toto ("Hold The Line"; yes, I know it's a "classic rock" chestnut - ostentatious guitars, too many keyboards, ridiculously wide polyester jacket lapels, white guy 'fros as far as the eye can see - THE '70s LIVE AGAIN!)...



...Daughtry ("It's Not Over").

How It's Done

Democratic Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York leads the way here on the supposed issue of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's plane, a talking point so ridiculous that it was even shot down, so to speak, by Tony Snow (hat tip to Atrios).

Crustacean Love and Horsey Morsels

Yep, you can tell it’s a Friday afternoon in these parts and I’m running short of posting material, so here goes.

First, I was informed by one of my field correspondents that the Whole Foods chain of specialty food stores will sell lobsters in its Maine stores, but it will continue the practice of selling them nowhere else in this country.

And why exactly would it do this? As noted in the story…

The (Maine) lobsters would be kept in private compartments instead of being piled on top of each other in a tank, and employees would use a device that zaps them with a 110-volt shock to spare them the agony of being boiled alive in a pot of water.

I also have it on deep background that the lobsters will be able to spend their final, pre-zapping moments relaxing on barcaloungers listening to Yanni on their headsets while enjoying the all-enveloping comfort of wearing cable knit sweaters.

As the late, great Molly Ivins used to ask about Bushco, are there any adults here?

This appears to be PETA-ism gone completely bonkers. We like the lobster, we catch the lobster, we cook the lobster, we eat the lobster. We’re sorry that the lobster is feeling pain, but it won’t matter when the lobster is being digested in our stomachs.

Whole Foods is a great place, but they’re the ones “in the tank” on this one. Oy.

Next appears this column from Joel Stein about the delicacy of horsemeat, which is kind of a metaphorical equivalent to the last column I recall from him about refusing to support our troops.

I have a feeling this will inspire a new food craze called “Barbaro Burgers,” with this ad slogan: “Get ‘em while you can; hurry on down to a participating food retailer today. They’re going fast, so break a leg!”

(I’m sorry…)

Where The Rubber Meets The Road (2/9/07)

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.

(Again, barely worth the trouble this week; I hope these jokers are earning their salaries.)

House

2007 budget. The House passed, 286-140, and sent to the Senate $463.5 billion in fiscal 2007 appropriations for departments and agencies that have not yet received regular annual budgets. The continuing resolution (H.J.R. 20) would fund nine appropriations bills that the 109th Congress left unfinished.

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.), Jim Gerlach (R., Pa.), Tim Holden (D., Pa.), Frank A. LoBiondo (R., N.J.), Patrick Murphy (D., Pa.), Allyson Schwartz (D., Pa.), Joe Sestak (D., Pa.) and Christopher H. Smith (R., N.J.).

Voting no: Joseph R. Pitts (R., Pa.) and H. James Saxton (R., N.J.).

By the way, to read more about the nine appropriations bills that the happy-now-departed 109th Congress refused to pass, click here (as the Chronicle story notes, the two bills passed and signed into law by Dubya pertained to the military and homeland security).

And here’s a pop quiz; who said that failing to pass the appropriations bills was “shameful”?

a) Nancy Pelosi
b) Harry Reid
c) Jack Kingston
d) Robert Byrd

The answer is c) Repug Jack Kingston of Georgia. Kudos to him for his honesty (and Joe Pitts is clueless yet again).

Senate

Minimum wage. The Senate passed, 94-3, a bill to raise the minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $7.25 an hour over 26 months. The measure (H.R. 2), which also would provide $8.3 billion in tax breaks to help small businesses pay the higher wage, goes to conference with the House.

All Philadelphia-area senators voted for the bill.

And by the way, the three numbskulls who voted no (as you can see here) were Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and Jon Kyl of Arizona (and I don’t need to mention their political party, do I?).

This week, the House voted on a bill to develop alternative fuels and low-sulfur diesel fuel; the Senate considered nonbinding measures disapproving of President Bush's escalation of the war in Iraq.

What Is The Mission, Joe?

I’ll make this question as simple as I can for today.

I read the latest from Joe Klein, and that is what kept occurring to me over and over again (defined by this excerpt)...

Mission is a sacred word in the military. When you are given a mission, you are trained to complete it, to keep on trying new tactics until the objective is achieved. It is a matter of duty and honor. And so, when politicians criticize a mission, the reflexive military reaction is to assume they are acting dishonorably, putting politics above duty.

These are noble sentiments worthy of our respect. However, in the context of the Iraq war, I don't understand exactly what "the mission" is.

Could it be one of the following:

- Patrol the streets of Baghdad focusing on insurgent “hotbeds” (by the way, in this story, Lieutenant Colonel Scott Bleichwehl points out that there are “multiple missions”).

- Try to figure out why we’ve lost five military helicopters in Iraq so far this year?

- Make colleges in Baghdad safe for the student population again?

- Come clean in the friendly fire death of a British soldier?

- Try to stem the tide of refugees pouring out of Iraq?

I’m sure if I pondered this long enough, I could come up with other questions about “the mission” that you should answer, Joe, but I think these are enough for now.

And given the fact that you still continue to obfuscate on exactly what it is that’s at stake here, I don’t see where you get the right to criticize fellow Iraq war enabler Joe Lieberman (and not ruling out using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran here shows that you really haven’t learned from your somewhat hesitant cheerleading on Iraq, have you?).

(By the way, I'm sure Cpl. Jennifer Parcell was able to determine "the mission," and we should remember her as much as we are currently remembering a rich, troubled blonde who died as well, leaving behind a young daughter whose parentage is in question along with a boatload of money.)

Bill Donahue Does Not Speak For Me

I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again (nor do people like “Strip Search Sammy” Alito, John Roberts or certainly Rick Santorum speak for me):

I am a Roman Catholic, and Bill Donahue Does Not Speak For Me.

A man who said, “Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity” does not speak for me.” A man who said that there are some whites who want to perform fellatio on a statue of The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. does not speak for me.

A man who speaks of trying to intimidate the Senate Judiciary Committee does not speak for me.

I am a Roman Catholic, and Bill Donahue Does Not Speak For Me (and yes, I just signed the Blogpac petition – you should too).

Thursday Videos

I know I don't really do the celebrity stuff well, and there's a good reason for that, but I supposed I should mention the passing of Anna Nicole Smith today, if for no other reason than the fact that CNN will run with this for at least a week (so ridiculous, by the way, that they and other news organizations continue to let Bill Donahue slam Marcotte and McEwan without dealing with Donahue's wingnuttery too; the battle over Howard Marshall's money will get really interesting now).

Anyway, here's a clip of Anna Nicole flying while trying to introduce someone at an awards show (again, this stuff isn't really my thing)...



...and as I read about what happened to her, this song ran around a bit in my head ("Plowed," by Sponge).

Make It A Movie Night

The latest from Democracy For America…

Will you join other DFA members at a screening of The War Tapes?

Click here.

The War Tapes is one of the most compelling documentaries of our time. It focuses not just on the war, but life back home and the difficult ways family and relationships change. The film is powerful and moving conveying both the passion and mindset of American soldiers and the incredible human and community cost of war. You have never seen film like this before.

After the movie, we will send postcards to congress demanding binding action to end the occupation in Iraq and bring our brave men and women home. The movement to end this war is building; help us unite our voices by taking action together:

Click here.

The New York Times says The War Tapes is "Riveting! Compelling!" Entertainment Weekly refers to it as "the first indispensable Iraq documentary," and the Washington Post wrote that it should "be required viewing in every classroom and living room in America."

Kevin McCarthy from The Nation magazine says this about The War Tapes, winner of Best Documentary of the year at the Tribeca Film Festival:

"...audiences are too often awed by the excitement of battle and bond with the unit against the enemy. The War Tapes avoids that trap... this soldier-made documentary may demonstrate that the best way to support our troops is to bring them home."

Don't miss this movie. Let's get together, watch it, and take action!

Thank you for everything you do,

Charles Chamberlain
Field Director

Mature Content Warning:

This movie takes place in a war zone and is shot by soldiers themselves. It contains adult language, war violence and a brief moment of graphic nudity.

P.S. You can see a trailer and read the full reviews for the movie here.

The Plame Game

I’ve been trying to digest everything going on in the “Scooter” Libby trial, everything from whether or not Tim Russert gave Libby the name of Joe Wilson’s wife to whether or not Dick Cheney gave it to Libby or maybe Richard Armitage got it from Karl Rove even though Libby is claiming that he’s not going to take the fall for Rove but somehow Judith Miller refused to divulge Libby as a source even though Libby was under indictment but Libby is mad at Russert again because Libby says Russert knew he would be indicted but meanwhile Patrick Fitzgerald granted Ari Fleischer immunity to testify and then Fleischer announced in his testimony that he broke the law by giving the name to Libby but then we still don’t know who originally gave up the name to Fleischergot the name from Libby too...

Can you see why this damn story is giving me one big headache (and I’m not even taking an active role in it, thank God)? And can someone please explain to me again how Bob Novak, the conservative mouthpiece who got all of this started by outing her to begin with, manages to get a total pass in this?

I’m not impugning anyone for covering it; I admire them, actually, for trying to decipher this utter mess. This needs to be covered as thoroughly as possible (and of course, the “old, wise heads” are going to say that it isn’t worth our time).

But in the midst of the exposure of the tawdry, cliquish game played by the politicians and their slavish sycophants in the media-industrial complex (with Russert getting the once-over today and yesterday, though it looks like he’s done for now and it will be someone else’s turn shortly), I’d like to point something out.

Valerie Plame’s career was severely damaged by the revelation that she was a spy. That is what matters, not how many times Tim Russert crossed his legs on the stand or how many times Judith Miller adjusted the hem of her skirt or how much meta-commentary can be generated from the fact that Russert (if he is to be believed) automatically assumes that talking to government officials is off the record “unless specified.”

And I know the people reporting on this know that, but I think it needs to be mentioned again (and, of course, a lot of the goings-on here have no doubt been orchestrated by Bushco to shield itself and hang Libby out to dry).

And that’s why I’m going to pay more attention to the Plame civil trial than this one, since the charges will pertain more directly to the crime than in this case, which is, after all, based on obstruction of justice dealing with a crime for which no one was formally charged.

HRC And Her Dirty Dough

(Though, to be fair, “St.” McCain is doing the same thing, and others probably will also.)

This editorial in USA Today points out a disturbing new practice, and that is politicians who run for public office but decide not to take public money, which means that they don’t have to abide by campaign spending limits.

As a result, the 2008 campaign could be the first billion dollar presidential campaign in this country’s history.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is insane, mainly because we end up having even more of a government “of the money, by the money, and for the money” than ever before.

In response, here is an example of doing the right thing; as noted in the editorial, seven states (Arizona, Connecticut, Maine, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico and Vermont) and two cities (Albuquerque and Portland, Ore.) are now using or preparing to use public funding for some or all races.

And what happens as a result? As also noted in the editorial…

Gov. Janet Napolitano, who won office under Arizona's public financing law, implemented a prescription drug discount plan on her first day in office in 2003. Had she run with contributions from donors such as drug companies, she said that year, she might never have been able to do that. Lobbyists would have tried to undermine it, threatening to back another candidate in the next election.

"None of that happened," Napolitano said, "because special interests had nothing to hold over me."

Only public money should be used for political campaigns, and if the importance of this practice was communicated to everyone, it would go a long way towards draining the political swamp of Washington, D.C. and putting government back to work for us for a change.

I’m sure Senator Clinton knows this, but she also sees the practicality of needing vast sums of dough to outspend the Repugs, who will conjure up every demon we can imagine and a few we can’t to try and oppose her.

All the same, she should still know better.

Mitt Has Big Shoes To Fill

On the front page of today’s New York Times, a story appears concerning whether or not Mitt Romney’s religion will be an obstacle as he campaigns for the Repug nomination for president next year (Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, is a Mormon).

The story notes the following…

Mr. Romney said he was giving strong consideration to a public address about his faith and political views, modeled after the one John F. Kennedy gave in 1960 in the face of a wave of concern about his being a Roman Catholic.

I found JFK’s speech online here, and I’m also including the speech in its entirety below with highlighted excerpts that I think are crucial, given Romney’s desire to pledge his fealty to the so-called “Christian” right in order to get elected (I think it's also important to revisit this because of the recent hypocrite squawking over John Edwards' bloggers by Bill Donahue):

While the so-called religious issue is necessarily and properly the chief topic here tonight, I want to emphasize from the outset that we have far more critical issues to face in the 1960 election; the spread of Communist influence, until it now festers 90 miles off the coast of Florida--the humiliating treatment of our President and Vice President by those who no longer respect our power--the hungry children I saw in West Virginia, the old people who cannot pay their doctor bills, the families forced to give up their farms--an America with too many slums, with too few schools, and too late to the moon and outer space.

These are the real issues which should decide this campaign. And they are not religious issues--for war and hunger and ignorance and despair know no religious barriers.

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured--perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again--not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me--but what kind of America I believe in.

I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute--where no Catholic prelate would tell the President (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote--where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference--and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the President who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.

I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish--where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source--where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials--and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all.

For while this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew--or a Quaker--or a Unitarian--or a Baptist. It was Virginia's harassment of Baptist preachers, for example, that helped lead to Jefferson's statute of religious freedom. Today I may be the victim--but tomorrow it may be you--until the whole fabric of our harmonious society is ripped at a time of great national peril.

Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end--where all men and all churches are treated as equal--where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice--where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind--and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood.

Actually, I should have highlighted the entire preceding paragraph.

That is the kind of America in which I believe. And it represents the kind of Presidency in which I believe--a great office that must neither be humbled by making it the instrument of any one religious group nor tarnished by arbitrarily withholding its occupancy from the members of any one religious group. I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair, neither imposed by him upon the nation or imposed by the nation upon him as a condition to holding that office.

I would not look with favor upon a President working to subvert the first amendment's guarantees of religious liberty. Nor would our system of checks and balances permit him to do so--and neither do I look with favor upon those who would work to subvert Article VI of the Constitution by requiring a religious test--even by indirection--for it. If they disagree with that safeguard they should be out openly working to repeal it.

I want a Chief Executive whose public acts are responsible to all groups and obligated to none--who can attend any ceremony, service or dinner his office may appropriately require of him--and whose fulfillment of his Presidential oath is not limited or conditioned by any religious oath, ritual or obligation.

This is the kind of America I believe in--and this is the kind I fought for in the South Pacific, and the kind my brother died for in Europe. No one suggested then that we may have a "divided loyalty," that we did "not believe in liberty," or that we belonged to a disloyal group that threatened the "freedoms for which our forefathers died."

And in fact this is the kind of America for which our forefathers died--when they fled here to escape religious test oaths that denied office to members of less favored churches--when they fought for the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom--and when they fought at the shrine I visited today, the Alamo. For side by side with Bowie and Crockett died McCafferty and Bailey and Carey--but no one knows whether they were Catholic or not. For there was no religious test at the Alamo.

I ask you tonight to follow in that tradition--to judge me on the basis of my record of 14 years in Congress--on my declared stands against an Ambassador to the Vatican, against unconstitutional aid to parochial schools, and against any boycott of the public schools (which I have attended myself)--instead of judging me on the basis of these pamphlets and publications we all have seen that carefully select quotations out of context from the statements of Catholic church leaders, usually in other countries, frequently in other centuries, and always omitting, of course, the statement of the American Bishops in 1948 which strongly endorsed church-state separation, and which more nearly reflects the views of almost every American Catholic.

I do not consider these other quotations binding upon my public acts--why should you? But let me say, with respect to other countries, that I am wholly opposed to the state being used by any religious group, Catholic or Protestant, to compel, prohibit, or persecute the free exercise of any other religion. And I hope that you and I condemn with equal fervor those nations which deny their Presidency to Protestants and those which deny it to Catholics. And rather than cite the misdeeds of those who differ, I would cite the record of the Catholic Church in such nations as Ireland and France--and the independence of such statesmen as Adenauer and De Gaulle.

But let me stress again that these are my views--for contrary to common newspaper usage, I am not the Catholic candidate for President. I am the Democratic Party's candidate for President who happens also to be a Catholic. I do not speak for my church on public matters--and the church does not speak for me.

Whatever issue may come before me as President--on birth control, divorce, censorship, gambling or any other subject--I will make my decision in accordance with these views, in accordance with what my conscience tells me to be the national interest, and without regard to outside religious pressures or dictates. And no power or threat of punishment could cause me to decide otherwise.

But if the time should ever come--and I do not concede any conflict to be even remotely possible--when my office would require me to either violate my conscience or violate the national interest, then I would resign the office; and I hope any conscientious public servant would do the same.

But I do not intend to apologize for these views to my critics of either Catholic or Protestant faith--nor do I intend to disavow either my views or my church in order to win this election.

If I should lose on the real issues, I shall return to my seat in the Senate, satisfied that I had tried my best and was fairly judged. But if this election is decided on the basis that 40 million Americans lost their chance of being President on the day they were baptized, then it is the whole nation that will be the loser, in the eyes of Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, in the eyes of history, and in the eyes of our own people.

But if, on the other hand, I should win the election, then I shall devote every effort of mind and spirit to fulfilling the oath of the Presidency--practically identical, I might add, to the oath I have taken for 14 years in the Congress. For without reservation, I can "solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution...so help me God.

If Romney’s words and actions come anywhere close to matching those of JFK, then I will pay closer attention to him. Otherwise, Romney would be better off not bothering to invoke the name of a public servant who was far greater than he will ever be.

Update 12/06/07: The headline from Kagro X here says it all.

More On Marcotte

I thought this Time article on the dustup within the Edwards campaign over Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan wasn't too bad, though I don't think it's a big deal given the fine overall quality of their work (re: the two bloggers) and the craziness of the people who brought all of this to a head.

However, I did want to point out to Time that John Thune is a Republican.

Update 2/8 AM: Never a doubt (hat tip to Atrios)...

Update 2/8 PM: Oh, shut up Donahue - besides, we're wise to assclowns like you now.

Update Again 2/8 PM: Cliff Schecter nails it here (but no possessive apostrophe, dude - very anal, I know).

Wednesday Videos

I missed the birthday of vocalist Cory Wells of Three Dog Night on Monday ("Easy To Be Hard" on "The Music Scene" with David Steinberg in 1969-1970; I think the lead vocalist here is Chuck Negron - what an absolutely hideous white belt)...



...Jet ("Cold Hard Bitch" - Valentine's Day is next Wednesday, by the way; also, the answer to last night's trivia question is "To Kill A Mockingbird").

Fun With Bill Donohue

I was a little curious about the guy making accusations against the two bloggers in the John Edwards campaign, so I checked around a bit on Bill Donohue, and came up with this comment about lesbians, as well as an assortment of hate speech here.

These items weren't highlighted by Media Matters, but I'd like to do so here.

- Regarding "The Passion Of The Christ" - "I'm pretty good about picking out who queers are and I didn't see any in the movie. I'm usually pretty good at that."

- I was also repulsed by Donohue's argument against stem cell research, stating that it would be like "serving human embryos at a cocktail party."

And Kagro X of The Daily Kos reminds everyone that, while today it is the Edwards team, tomorrow it will surely be the team of another Democrat that is targeted by the wingnuts, so we need to slap these cretins down.

Also, please allow me to go on the record once again concerning this vile individual.

I am a Roman Catholic, and it seems like everyone of my faith who pretends to speak the loudest for me is certifiably nuts.

Bill Donohue most certainly does not speak for me.

Finally, I'm going to consolidate the following from an earlier post since I added it on this topic to the Bill Lawhorn post earlier, but it really doesn't belong there.
__

(By the way, I updated this post after reading the New York Times story on the criticism by Bill Donohue of bloggers Amanda Marcotte and Melissa McEwan and the response from Atrios and Media Matters related to this item, and I get it now - sorry for the "duuuh" moment. I think the "let's wait and see" statement from Edwards spokesperson Jennifer Palmieri is OK and doesn't concern me; I give Edwards enough credit not to throw Marcotte and McEwan under the bus. We'll see.)

Oh, and by the way, CNN, if you're going to write about the story with Edwards and Donohue, try writing photo captions that actually make sense, OK?

Update: And Glenn Greenwald via Atrios points out here that if bloggers for Edwards are going to merit close scrutiny, then that should be the case for those on the Republican side also (I don't take shots at family members out of the public eye, and that's why the cheap shot at Chelsea Clinton is in particularly bad taste).

“Hot Air Jim” Still Fights Global Warming

(And probably always will…)

Once upon a time, boys and girls, there was a loudmouthed senator from Oklahoma who huffed and puffed as hard as he could and did his best to scare everyone into believing that we can burn all of the fossil fuels we want and create CO2 any way possible and it was still all right.

And he believed this because he thought that global warming didn’t exist, even though reliable scientific data stated categorically that it did.

Well, since this was part of the reason why this senator’s political party lost the election last November, he also lost some of his power. But do you think he learned a lesson?

Why no, of course not.

And since the other political party won and is now performing its oversight role that this senator refused to do, how do you think he decided to respond?

Why, he decided to attack the author of a children’s book who also produced a movie that the senator didn’t like warning everyone about a problem that, according to the senator, still doesn’t exist.

I’ll tell you what, boys and girls. Let’s clap our hands together and make a wish, and maybe if we’re lucky, the senator will get caught in the middle of a rapidly evolving storm front that is a typical weather fluctuation for what he claims isn’t happening, and it will wash him all the way out to the Gulf of Mexico. Maybe that will teach him his lesson.

But I know that’s impossible; it really would be a fairy tale if we ever thought Inhofe would get anything through his thick skull.

Update 2/16/07: By the way, the Kyoto Protocols came into force two years ago today.

Follow The Money, If You Can

As reported here, Paul Bremer, the former civilian administrator in Iraq, testified before a House oversight committee chaired by Henry Waxman in an effort to find out whether or not any money intended for Iraq’s reconstruction ended up with insurgents instead.

As you might expect, Bremer vigorously defended himself. But to get a reminder of what transpired under Bremer’s watch, let’s travel back to those heady days right after the statue of Saddam Hussein had fallen for a few minutes, OK (specifically, here).

Paul Bremer's taste in clothes symbolises "the new Iraq" very well. He wears a business suit and combat boots. As the proconsul of Iraq, you might have thought he'd have more taste. But he is a famous "anti-terrorism" expert who is supposed to be rebuilding the country with a vast army of international companies-most of them American, of course-and creating the first democracy in the Arab world. Since he seems to be a total failure at the "anti-terrorist" game-50 American soldiers killed in Iraq since President George Bush declared the war over is not exactly a blazing success-it is only fair to record that he is making a mess of the "reconstruction" bit as well.

And how on earth could we have ever imagined longing for the day when only 50 of our troops had been killed after Dubya’s “Mission Accomplished” moment?

Indeed, anarchic violence is now being embedded in Iraqi society in a way it never was under the genocidal Saddam. Scarcely a day goes by when I do not encounter the evidence of this in my daily reporting work in Baghdad. Visiting the Yarrnouk hospital in Baghdad on Monday to seek the identity of civilians killed by American troops in Mansur the previous day, I came across four bodies Iying out in the yard beside the building in the 50C heat.

All had been shot. No one knew their identities. They were all young, save one who might have been a middle-aged man, with a hole in his sock. Three days earlier, on a visit to a local supermarket, I noticed that the woman cashier was wearing black. Yes, she said, because her brother had been murdered a week earlier. No one knew why.

And disbanding the Iraqi army soon after he became “viceroy” (and try telling me that a title like that didn’t have imperialist connotations - don't completely understand the difference between that and "proconsul," assuming there is one) was part of the reason for all of the violence described above. However, in an interview conducted two years ago, Bremer called it ".. the most important decision I made, and it had the effect of avoiding a civil war in Iraq.”

I hate to break the news to you, Paul, but your decision only postponed civil war. It didn’t avoid it.

And I found Bremer’s quote here darkly humorous (and again, this passage was written in 2005)…

Recent low levels of American public support for the Iraq effort can be explained partly because of the far-off setting, and because the two-year conflict remains unresolved, he said.

"Americans are can-do, impatient kind of people. They like to get on with things," Bremer said. "And this is tough stuff. Nation building is not something that happens overnight."

Well, pardon us, Paul, but as an American taxpayer, I get highly concerned when I hear about 363 tons of cash in stacks of $100 bills that are flown over on C-130 military cargo planes into a war zone that suddenly cannot be accounted for. That’s not called being “impatient.” It’s called “exercising common sense,” something that you apparently didn’t do when you called the shots over there (especially because, as you have so infamously noted here, you “didn’t see the insurgency coming”.

And of course, Bremer was awarded the Congressional Medal of Freedom by Dubya, who of course recognizes failure as success regularly (see Rumsfeld, Don).

Good for Rep. Waxman for making Bremer squirm a bit. It’s the least Bremer should have to endure, as opposed to these heroes who have paid the ultimate price.

The Price Of Standing Up

A full-page ad appeared in the New York Times on Sunday for the Employee Free Choice Act, and it explained the story of Bill Lawhorn. The text follows…

After working as a forklift driver at Consolidated Biscuit Co. in McComb, Ohio for 11 years, Bill Lawhorn was tired of the abuse and disrespect. He and his co-workers decided to form a union: “We wanted to be treated like human beings. We wanted a better life.”

Three-quarters of the workers joined Bill in petitioning the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) for a union representation election.

Then the company went on the attack. Harassment. Intimidation. Mandatory anti-union meetings. Threats to cut benefits and shut down the plant. Bill was told he’d lose his job. The company’s tactics succeeded with enough workers to tip the election.

The next day, Bill was fired. That was back in 2002. The NLRB ordered him reinstated with back pay and called for a new election.

But after five years of appeals and delays by the company, Bill’s still waiting. Without a steady job. Borrowing from his kids. And no union to help his co-workers fight for better wages, benefits and respect.

In Bill’s words, “The laws are set up for the employer to win.” And what happened to Bill happens to workers across America every day.

That’s why we need the Employee Free Choice Act (more info here). So workers can make a free choice to win better treatment at work and a better life for their families.

And take a guess as to which presidential candidate supports the Employee Free Choice Act (nice try on the “in bed with labor” remark, Tweety).

For What It's Worth

I started to answer Prof Marcus’ comment to the AP post below, but I realized it might be getting too long for a comment, so I’m just making a new post out of it.

As long as you’ve made this good point, please allow me to tell you about how I wrestle with this every day.

Instead of trying to chop off the stinking, rotten head of the snake all the time, as it were, I try to take a shot at it every now and then but also go after everything that gives the snake its phony sense of legitimacy so the snake is left to slither on its own.

That’s why I said what I said about that dumb David Espo “story,” and that’s why I chimed in against Broderius Ignoramus the other day and this insulting fiction of his about how everything is going to be so gosh-golly-bleeping-swell in the new Congress, and that’s why I slam the Repugs who support Dubya every chance I can get. I’ve got to mix it up – I can’t hammer Dubya over and over and over again because I’d lose my goddamn mind, to say nothing of the people who graciously take time to read what I have to say (which is actually pretty incredible when you think that anybody values my opinion or any blogger’s to any degree enough to do that, though I’m not trying to puff myself up by saying that).

Yes, it’s infuriating that more isn’t happening with impeaching this clown and his gang of crooks. Yes, it’s true that the fact that we’d be officially stuck with Cheney isn’t really an excuse for the status quo. Yes, it’s true that the attendant media circus of right-wing whores prattling on about that bad Democrat party again in the event that the impeachment ball got rolling for real isn’t a reason to let up either.

But I just want to mention something else about that, and I wish I could remember where I heard this first. You probably know as well as I that when the investigation of the break-in at the Watergate hotel began, no one had any idea it would lead to Nixon’s resignation. Even though Pelosi has said that impeachment is off the table, they are investigating this administration and Congress is FINALLY exercising its function of oversight. There is movement in the direction that may God willing one day lead to impeachment (including the Obama/Patrick Murphy/Thompson bill – even though the people of this country are way ahead of the political “leadership,” I can’t think of any other way to play this game).

I’m keenly aware of the fact that Molly Ivins, with her dying breath, was telling people to go out in the street and protest the Iraq war, and I never feel like I’m doing enough about that. I’ve also just about given up trying to persuade friends and family members by presenting the facts and trying to initiate a discussion. The latest example of head-butting on this was with a guy I was friends with for years, and I mentioned how Biden is such a rotten candidate because he supported the fraud bankruptcy bill and tort “reform,” and my former friend said, “Well, I support Biden on that. He’s trying to keep people from credit card abuse, and I believe in personal accountability.” And I got pissed and said, “Like I don’t?”

Suffice to say that it went downhill from there – I didn’t even bother trying to explain to him that the majority of people don’t lose their homes because of credit card fraud; people max out their savings and credit cards and lose their homes often because of health care costs or job loss…don’t even try to lay that stupid, AEI-approved “personal accountability” crap on me!

So what I’m trying to do here, along with many other bloggers whose company I am proud to share, is fight the ideological battle. Bushco wouldn’t have been able to acquire its power unless the vast majority of this country believed a whole boatload of ideologically-generated crap, and I’m just trying to do my part to debunk it a bit at the time. I’m chipping away at the façade in the hope that it will completely crumble one day. Given the usual constraints, I don’t know what else I can do.

I’ll get back to creating my usual content as soon as I can.

The AP Strikes Again

I read this excerpt from the following AP story (near the end on page 3) about the Democratic Party trying to hold Bush accountable for the Iraq War in Congress, and I almost lost my mind.

Apart from legislation, Democrats have embarked on an effort to undermine public support for the war by holding numerous hearings.

I have news for David Espo; there isn't a whole hell of a lot of public support for the Iraq war here or elsewhere to be "undermined."

If Espo himself wrote that line, he should be fired. If not, the editor responsible for it should be booted immediately instead.

Tuesday Videos

Happy Birthday to Tim Brown of The Boo Radleys ("Lazarus" - interesting '90s/faux '60s sound; by the way, the name of the band is a character from what novel?)...



...and Frankie Laine died today ("The Sunny Side Of The Street" - couldn't find "Jezebel," unfortunately).