What could have been

In recognition of the 5th anniversary of 9-11 I am posting an address that former Vice President Al Gore gave to the Council on Foreign Governments five months after the tragedy that I found over at Political Animal.

Al Gore
Address to the Council on Foreign Relations
February 12, 2002

I am grateful to be back before the Council on Foreign Relations and I want to congratulate Les Gelb and the entire Council — its staff and its members — on the great work you have been doing to deepen our understanding of America’s role in the world.

A lot of people have let me know they wished I had been speaking out on public affairs long before now. But in the aftermath of a very divisive election, I thought it would be graceless to do so and possibly damaging to the nation. And then came September 11th.

In the immediate aftermath, I expressed full support for our Commander-in-Chief, President George W. Bush. Tonight I reaffirm that support of the President’s conduct of the military campaign in Afghanistan, and I appreciate his candor in telling the American people that this will be a long struggle — for which the nation must be braced and its political leadership united across party lines.

Indeed, President Bush deserves tremendous credit for the way he has led the nation in a highly successful opening counter-attack in the war against terror.

All Americans are proud of our nation's triumph — and especially proud of the courage and skill that our armed forces have demonstrated in winning swift and decisive victories. Our men and women in uniform have shown uncommon valor and the highest levels of dedication, professionalism and preparedness in responding to this enormous challenge. They have proved they are up to the task and I know they will continue to protect and defend us in the coming stages of the military campaign as well.

If yesterday marked the five month anniversary of the darkest day in American history, today — the Day After — must mark the anniversary of one of the greatest days in American history: because on September 12, a bruised and battered nation began to fight back. Some fought back by rushing to aid and rescue the few surviving victims of the tragedy — and to aid and comfort the grieving and bereaved. Here in this city, even this today, remains are still being removed from the World Trade Center site.

Some fought back by reporting to reserve units or shipping out for extended tours of duty. And still others reported for duty on the front lines of our homeland defense as firefighters, police, nurses, border patrol, and others whose courage and sacrifices are admired and appreciated now more than ever.

The Axis of Evil

I also support the President's stated goals in the next phases of the war against terrorism as he laid them out in the State of the Union. What I want to talk about tonight are the fundamental, strategic questions before us as a nation. What are the next steps in the war against terrorism? And beyond immediate next steps, what is the longer-range plan of action? And finally, what should be done to deal with root causes of this threat?

Since the State of the Union, there has been much discussion of whether Iraq, Iran and North Korea truly constitute an "Axis of Evil." As far as I'm concerned, there really is something to be said for occasionally putting diplomacy aside and laying one's cards on the table. There is value in calling evil by its name.

One should never underestimate the power of bold words coming from a President of the United States. Jimmy Carter's espousal of human rights as an integral part of American foreign policy was in truth the crucial first step towards the democratic transformation of Latin America. And Ronald Reagan's blast against "the evil empire" was a pivotal moment reminding everyone that there was more at issue in the struggle between east and west than a contest for power.

As important as identifying Iraq, Iran and North Korea for what they are, we must be equally bold in identifying other evils that confront us. For there is another Axis of Evil in the world: poverty and ignorance; disease and environmental disorder; corruption and political oppression. We may well put down terror in its present manifestations. But if we do not attend to the larger fundamentals as well, then the ground is fertile and has been seeded for the next generation of those born to hate us, who will hold these things up before the world's poor and dispossessed, and say that all these things are in our image, and rekindle the war we are now hoping to snuff out.

"Draining the swamp" of terrorism must of course in the first instance mean destroying the ability of terrorist networks to function. But drying it up at its source must also mean draining the aquifer of anger that underlies terrorism: anger that enflames the hearts of so many young men, and makes them willing, dedicated recruits for terror. Anger at perceived historical injustices involving a mass-memory throughout the Islamic world of past glory and more recent centuries of decline and oppression at the hands of the West.

Anger at the cynicism of Western policy during the Cold War: often aligning itself with corrupt and tyrannical governments. And even after all that, anger at the continued failure to thrive, as rates of economic growth stagnate, while the cohort of unemployed young men under twenty continues to increase.

This is anger different than the pure evil represented by terrorists, but anger nonetheless — anger which is the medium on which the impulse to terrorism thrives. The evil we now confront is not just the one-time creation of a charismatic leader and his co-conspirators, or even of a handful of regimes. What we deal with now is today's manifestation of an anger welling up from deep layers of grievance shared by many millions of people.

Military force alone cannot deal with this. Public diplomacy alone cannot drain this reservoir. What will be needed is a far reaching American strategy for encouraging reform, and for engaging day in and day out with societies that are trying to cast off the curse of bitter experience relived continuously. Hope for the future is the only way to put out these fires.

What is "evil" anyway? I do not pretend to have the answer to such a question but my faith tradition teaches me that all of us have the potential inside of us for both good and evil. Indeed, the first example of murderous violence in the Bible is the story of the two sons of Adam and Eve. With slight differences, it is the same story told in Chapter five, verses 27 through 31 of "Sura" in the Koran, where Muslims read that both Cain and Abel "offered an offering, but it was accepted from one of them and was not accepted from the other." Feeling disrespected by God, Cain said to his brother, "I will most certainly slay you... then his mind facilitated to him the slaying of his brother, so he slew him; then he became one of the losers."

Disrespect, the feeling that what one has to offer in life has been rejected, the feeling that one has joined history’s losers can make us as human beings more vulnerable to evil.

Conservative theologian Michael Novak wrote recently of America’s founders’ view that, "there is evil in the world and it coagulates, it gathers force, and if it bursts its bounds endangers everybody." In a brilliant essay that was otherwise full of praise for President Bush’s actions in the war against terror, Novak concluded with an important caution: "The word ‘evil’, when used only of others, can intoxicate the user before he knows it. I commend to him [the President], and all of us, [Reinhold] Neibuhr’s pregnant warning: ‘the final enigma of history is therefore not how the righteous will gain victory over the un-righteous, but how the evil in every good and the un-righteousness of the righteous is to be overcome.’"

We must also expand our idea of what constitutes a threat to our security in the long run, and be prepared to confront and deal with these things, too. It is time to accept that massive environmental disorder including global warming is literally a threat to international peace and stability. We must finally develop alternatives to mid-eastern oil, internal combustion engines, inefficient boilers and the inertia that has paralyzed needed efforts at conservation.

HIV/AIDS is a national security threat. It is now the most deadly pandemic in the history of the world. U.S. leadership is needed.

We must acknowledge that the utter poverty of hundreds of millions of people is not a matter for compassion only, but a threat in the long term to the growth and vigor of the global economic system. We must see it as a part of our charge to help create economic opportunity so that the gap between the richest and poorest does not grow ever wider.

Globalized crime is a cousin to globalized terror, and along with corruption needs to be dealt with as an urgent threat to civil society.

Our most important immediate task is to continue to tear up the Al Qaeda network, and since it is present in many countries, it will be an operation, which requires new forms of sustained cooperation with other governments.

Even if we give first priority to the destruction of terrorist networks, and even if we succeed, there are still governments that could bring us great harm. And there is a clear case that one of these governments in particular represents a virulent threat in a class by itself: Iraq.

As far as I am concerned, a final reckoning with that government should be on the table. To my way of thinking, the real question is not the principle of the thing, but of making sure that this time we will finish the matter on our terms. But finishing it on our terms means more than a change of regime in Iraq. It means thinking through the consequences of action there on our other vital interests, including the survival in office of Pakistan's leader; avoiding a huge escalation of violence in the Middle East; provision for the security and interests of Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the Gulf States; having a workable plan for preventing the disintegration of Iraq into chaos; and sustaining critically important support within the present coalition.

In 1991, I crossed party lines and supported the use of force against Saddam Hussein, but he was allowed to survive his defeat as the result of a calculation we all had reason to deeply regret for the ensuing decade. And we still do. So this time, if we resort to force, we must absolutely get it right. It must be an action set up carefully and on the basis of the most realistic concepts. Failure cannot be an option, which means that we must be prepared to go the limit. And wishful thinking based on best-case scenarios or excessively literal transfers of recent experience to different conditions would be a recipe for disaster.

But still, the question remains — what next? Is Iran under the hard-liners less of a proliferation threat than Iraq? Or less involved with terrorism? If anything, Iran is at this moment a much more dangerous challenge in each area than Iraq. Iran is flight-testing longer range rockets. Iran has loaded up at least one merchant ship with a cargo of death for Israel.

The vast majority of the Iranian people seem to disagree with the policies and actions of the small group of mullahs now in control of their military and intelligence apparatus. We have to deal with that nation’s actions as they take place. In the process, however, we should find ways to encourage the majority who obviously wish to develop a more constructive relationship with us.

On the Korean peninsula, unlike in the previous two cases, we have a strong ally in South Korea. It is not enough to call North Korea what it is — evil. We need to continue to keep the peace by remaining ready for war, as we have for almost fifty years. We also need to work with President Kim Dae Jung and the government in the Republic of Korea to galvanize positive action on the peninsula. Throughout the 1990s we proved that a creative, sustained program could help move the North Korean regime in new directions. Such creativity and commitment to addressing our interests in Korea are needed more than ever now.

And supposing even that we could eliminate the threat presented by the "Axis of Evil?" at what point, can the United States declare that the job is done, and leave the scene? Here, a too narrow definition of the threat, and a too limited assessment of its causes, can lead us into trouble.

It is important that America not just stand tall against terrorists, but America must also stand for economic opportunity and democratic freedoms. America must stand for human rights. America must stand for the rights of women. America must stand for environmental protection and energy conservation.

Unilateralism and hubris

The Administration in which I served looked at the challenges we faced in the world and said we wished to tackle these "With others, if possible; alone, if we must." This Administration sometimes seems inclined to stand that on its head, so that the message is: "With others, if we must; by ourselves, if possible."

The coalition so skillfully assembled by the President is one that may dissipate as rapidly as it coalesced, unless we make an investment in its permanence, beginning with a more evident respect on our part for the views and interests of its members. As regards our most important established alliance, NATO, we convey impatience and disdain for the military capabilities of its other members, and little patience for their views about longer-term objectives.

Maybe they have earned a good deal of that by their failure to invest in capabilities they only talk about; maybe some of them have been much too ready to believe that the best way to deal with dangerous forces is always to engage them in dialogue. Maybe some of them have bought peace for themselves by not looking too hard for terrorists who plot against us on their soil, so long as their plans did not disturb domestic tranquility.

But we need them with us — and equally for sure, we cannot bind them to us for fierce battle over the long term if we take them lightly. We may be the world’s sole remaining super-power but we are going to need allies. In Greek mythology, Hercules was the super-power of his day, but when he faced his most dangerous foe, the multi-headed Hydra which — like the terrorist networks of today — grew two new heads every time one was cut off — he had to build a coalition. Uncharacteristically he teamed up with an ally because it was the only way he could prevail.

Continuity of effort

One of the truly bad things about our politics is that it incites each administration to attack every last thing its predecessor has done, and to either tear down what was left or rename it so that its parentage can be forgotten. We did some of that — but we also kept a lot of what we inherited from the first Bush administration and we protected it and built upon it. The struggle against terror may last for a very long time, even past a shift of parties in power. You know, the Cold War was won by the cumulative work of administrations from Harry S Truman to George H. W. Bush. And I hope that the present administration chooses to invest in reconstructing a sense of what bipartisanship in the defense of the country is all about: even after the planes land and the guns stop firing.

I don't pretend to any received wisdom but I learned a lot from my experience in the Clinton-Gore administration: lessons I think are worth remembering and incorporating into the normal practice of our diplomacy — and of protecting from the vicious rip- tides of our politics. I know from experience that bi-partisanship is no easy matter. It is difficult to go against one's own political base, whether it’s a Democrat supporting the MX missile or a Republican trying to cancel an obsolete 70 ton artillery piece.

Above all, I learned that our engagement with others on behalf of common values is something that must be of profound intent, and of long duration. It isn't enough to destroy what is evil, and then seek to leave by the nearest door. We must make the commitment to work with those whom we have rescued until they can stand on their own feet.

That means supporting an increase in the size of the international security force in Afghanistan and enlarging its mandate beyond Kabul to the whole country. And it means remaining engaged ourselves, if not with a small symbolic presences in the international force on the ground, then at least as on the horizon ready to respond with help from the air when needed.

When all is said and done, I hope that when the people of our country next return the White House for a time to the Democratic Party, our leadership then will be big enough to salute the present administration for what it will have done that is wise and good. And to build upon it forthrightly.

Towards that end, we must now expand our concept of what is needed to reach the goals upon which we all agree. The United States needs to create a world made more just and more hopeful, not just a world made more profitable for ourselves. I hope that this President’s record makes it damn hard for the competition to complain about his record in foreign policy. That may be bad for the loyal opposition. But it’s good for the people, who deserve it. And I promise my support for whatever he may do in support of that prayer.

A hunting we will go...

Check out the front page of Saturday's San Antonio Express-News.
A big photo of Gov. Rick Perry in full hunting regalia complete with a dead buck. And here is the caption that runs with the photo (I kid you not):

Gov. Rick Perry's image as a hunter is so important in Texas politics that his campaign provided this picture.

And so, of course, the Express-News dutifully ran the picture on the front page of the paper today. Thank you, Express-News! I'm sure the Rick Perry for Governor campaign greatly appreciates it!

Sheesh! I suppose tomorrow they might as well formally endorse the governor and drop the charade of being objective in this election.

Update

On Sunday the E-N had another story on the governor’s race, this one about the importance of religion in the campaign. The only surprise was that they did not run a photo of Gov. Perry on his knees, praying in church. I suppose the Rick Perry for Governor campaign missed a great opportunity by not supply the E-N with that photo.

9-11 will never happen again

The one thing that still strikes me about 9-11 is how ingenious it was. They couldn't fly a plane over here and drop bombs on us, so they hijacked planes instead and turned them into bombs. The hijackers didn't need explosives or WMDs. Just some box cutters.
Nobody saw it coming and thus they were able to pull it off at first. But the novelty wore off before the attacks were even finished. Once the passengers on United 93 found out via cell phones that other planes had been used to strike the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, they fought like hell and brought the plane down.
That's why there will never be another 9-11 like that. It doesn't have anything to do with what President Bush has or has not done with regards to Homeland Security. It is simply a matter of a change of perspective of airline passengers. A terrorist today could not take control of a plane using just a razor blade or a knife. People today just aren't going to let them take control of a plane without putting up a fight. The days of passengers sitting back on hijacked planes expecting that they will just be flown to some other location where the hijacker will seek asylum are over. In fact, I would bet there have been fewer hijackings since 9-11 because of this. I don't actually know if that is true, but that would be my guess.
And even if someone did get control of a plane, our military would not hesitate to shoot it out of the sky before it could get near any major target areas.

What still worries us, however, is that bin Laden probably knew it was a one-shot deal and is now busy plotting other very different, but equally ingenious ways to attack us. That fear of the unknown is what has kept the Bush administration propped up these past five years. But now, at long last, people are finally starting to realize that this president, the worst president in modern history, is not making us safer and more secure. To the contrary, he has depleted our military resources, inflamed Muslim passions against us and provided al-Qaeda with incredible recruiting opportunities which they are currently using to great effect in Iraq and Afghanistan to launch suicide bombing attacks everyday.

Things are looking brighter

I’m still wary of being overly optimistic about the upcoming mid-term elections, but stories like this one are beginning to give me hope that the American electorate may have finally regained its sanity.

This administration has been a complete and total disaster by every conceivable measure. There is nothing they can show as a positive in trying to make the case for keeping their party in power and the best they can do is yell “Booga, booga!! The terrorists are gonna’ get you!!” at every opportunity.

There was a graphic that ran in Sunday’s NY Times that made a particularly compelling case about the precarious position House Republicans find themselves in today. It compared a number of statistics between past mid-term elections and the one coming up next month. Here is the gist of it looking at the 1994 election that ushered the Republicans into power 12 long years ago:

President’s approval rating:

1994: 45 percent
2006: 37 percent

Percent of voters who say their vote will be against the president:

1994: 18 percent
2006: 35 percent

Congress’ approval rating:

1994: 27 percent
2006: 27 percent

Favorable rating of the Republican Party:

1994: 63 percent
2006: 40 percent

Percent satisfied with national conditions:

1994: 24 percent
2006: 30 percent

Gasoline prices per gallon:

1994: $1.52
2006: $2.92

In 1994, Democrats lost 53 House seats as Republicans took majority control of Congress for the first time in decades.
In 2006, Republicans need only lose 15 House seats to lose their tentative grip on the House majority.

Croc Hunter RIP

I hated seeing the news about Steve Irwin dying the other day. I think it is the most tragic celebrity news I’ve seen since the late Christopher Reeve fell off his horse and became a parapalegic. Irwin was the kind of guy you expected to live forever, despite the fact that he constantly took risks. Kind of like Evil Kneivel.
The Crocodile Hunter was a favorite show at our household where the TV can usually be found skipping between Animal Planet, The Discovery Channel and Home and Garden Network.
I think what disturbed me the most is that he was only a few years older than me and his son is the same age as my little boy. Life is precious and he lived it to the fullest. My most sincere condolences to his family.

The Armitage revelation

My friend Mark Harden is dancing a little jig in the endzone to celebrate what he believes is the ignominious end of the CIA Leak scandal brought on by the revelation that Robert Novak’s primary source was Richard Armitage, a top aide to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell.
Why this should make any difference is unclear to me, however. We know that Novak was not the first journalist to learn about Valerie Plame, just the first to actually go to press with it. We also know that Novak went to Karl Rove with this information to get confirmation before going to press.

Kevin Drum sums it up well here.

Armitage is hardly the end of the story. Whether his gossiping was innocent or not — about which I remain agnostic — the fact remains that several other people were also aggressively talking to multiple reporters about Plame's role at the same time. If Armitage really didn't have any malicious intent, it's a helluva coincidence that he happened to be gossiping about the exact same thing as a bunch of other people who did have malicious intent.

And David Corn makes clear why and how the White House campaign to discredit Ambassador Wilson set the ball to rollling in the first place.

The Armitage leak was not directly a part of the White House's fierce anti-Wilson crusade. But as Hubris notes, it was, in a way, linked to the White House effort, for Amitage had been sent a key memo about Wilson's trip that referred to his wife and her CIA connection, and this memo had been written, according to special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, at the request of I. Lewis Scooter Libby, the vice president's chief of staff. Libby had asked for the memo because he was looking to protect his boss from the mounting criticism that Bush and Cheney had misrepresented the WMD intelligence to garner public support for the invasion of Iraq.

Finally, if the fact that Armitage was Novak’s primary source somehow makes everything OK with respect to the administration’s involvement in outing a covert CIA operative, why did Patrick Fitzgerald go forward with the investigation anyway? We also know that Novak went to Fitzgerald at the outset and told him who his sources were. So Fitzgerald has known all along that Armitage was Novak’s first source, and yet he pushed forward with the case and still indicted Scooter Libby for perjury and obstruction of justice. So the Armitage revelation changes nothing in that respect.
Also, if it was all no big deal, as Bush supporters are now claiming, why did Libby perjure himself before the grand jury?

Bush hosting murdering, theiving dictator

Remember this the next time Bush talks about his support for freedom and democracy around the world:

This week President Bush will be rolling out the red carpet for Nursultan Nazarbayev, the autocratic leader of Kazakhstan who is currently under investigation by the Justice Department for accepting millions of dollars in bribes.

Nazarbayev has banned opposition parties, intimidated the press and profited from his post, according to the U.S. government. But he also sits atop massive oil reserves that have helped open doors in Washington.

Nazarbayev is the elected leader of Kazakhstan in the same way that Saddam Hussein was the elected leader of Iraq. He won his last “election” with more than 91 percent of the vote, but that’s not hard to do when you have outlawed the political opposition and when your political opponents keep winding up gunned down on the side of the road.

Canon Rock

I can’t believe this kid hasn’t been signed to a recording contract yet! Are the record company executives insane?
If the Baha Boys were able to make a mint with “Who Let the Dogs Out?”, then surely Jeong-Hyun Lim and the composer Jerry Chang should make a small fortune for this.
They should invite these two fellows to perform this piece during the halftime show at the Super Bowl.

Chicks’ boost country music sales

I finally bought the Dixie Chick’s latest cd last week and was intrigued by this story about the last country radio station in L.A. shutting down:
Despite big sales, L.A. loses country radio

...the city lost its last country music channel when KZLA-FM (93.9), self-billed as "America's most listened-to country station," changed its format for the first time in 25 years - to a pop format focusing on beat-heavy R&B and dance tunes....

Ironically, KZLA's change comes at a time when country music is flourishing. While album sales of most musical genres have declined, country music has experienced one of its best years. During the first six months of 2006, U.S. sales of country albums increased by 17.7 percent to 36 million, according to Nielsen SoundScan. Best sellers from bands such as Rascal Flatts and the Dixie Chicks have driven those increases.

So if I am getting this straight, the Dixie Chicks are helping to boost country music sales at a time when country radio stations are suffering. The irony, of course is that many of these country radio stations refuse to play the Dixie Chicks despite their popularity because they are run by people who are unhappy with the Chicks’ political views. I guess it is just too much to expect that these stations would play the music that people want to hear. They would rather stick to their right-wing agenda even if it means that they will suffer financially.

A good government success story

In the comments to the previous post, my friend Mark Harden had this to say about welfare reform:

...what, exactly, the success of welfare reform was all about: removing the culture of dependency which, among other things, condemned two generations of poor blacks to poverty and misery. Welfare prior to 1995 was not "care" for citizens, Ann: it actively HARMED them. For example: welfare regulations encouraged single motherhood. Single motherhood is the greatest single factor correlating with poverty...higher than race, higher than lack of education. And your "caring" welfare program encouraged it.

By the mid-1990s the welfare system was in need of reform. It was expensive, inefficient and prone to abuse. But to say that it “actively harmed” people is utterly ridiculous. Believe it or not, but poverty existed long before the federal government stepped in and started passing out welfare checks. To say that welfare condemned people to poverty is like saying that the firefighters responding to a three-alarm fire were somehow the cause of the fire. They may not be spraying their water in the most efficient manner to put out the fire, but they certainly did not start the fire. And shutting off their hoses and walking away will not make the fire go away. Neither will poverty go away if the government shuts down its poverty programs and quits passing out checks.

Prior to the 1996 Welfare Reform Act, poor people were not “trapped” by welfare. It was not the monthly subsistence checks that were holding them down. Rather it was the lack of any other means to pull themselves out of poverty. What they needed other than just the threat of being cut off from welfare was the education, job training and child care programs that became available once the welfare reform act began redirecting money in that direction. It was those Clinton-era programs, combined with the Clinton-era prosperity that helped welfare reform make such dramatic strides in getting people off the welfare rolls. In other words, good government programs helped to fix a problem that was clogging up another good government program.

But Mark, unfortunately, is one of those conservatives afflicted with a malady known as Government Derangement Syndrome which makes him see all government progams as inherently evil. It is similar to Bush Derangement Syndrome which he often accuses me of having only about 10-times worse. (Poor Mark is also beset by a number of other similar maladies including Hillary Clinton Derangement Syndrome; Liberal Media Derangement Syndrome; Michael Moore Derangement Syndrome; and Democratic Presidential Nominee Derangement Syndrome among others.)

Thomas Frank in yesterday’s NYTimes had a facinating article about how the conservatives’ trashing of government suits their long-term interests even when it is their own people (Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, etc.) who are doing the trashing. This is because it promotes overall cynicism about the effectiveness of government and plays into the hands of the GOP, the anti-government party of today.

What really worries me, though, is that our response to all this may be to burrow deeper into our own cynicism, ultimately reinforcing the gang that owns the patent on cynicism and thus setting us up for another helping of the same. This may not be apparent now, with the identity of the culprits still vivid and the G.O.P. apparently heading for a midterm spanking. Recall, though, that while the short-term effects of the Watergate scandal were jail sentences for several Republicans and the election of many Democrats to Congress in 1974, its long-term effect was the destruction of public faith in government itself and the wave that swept in Ronald Reagan six years later.

Welfare reform is actually a success story for good government, but Mark would rather portray it as a failure of government so that people will continue to support anti-government politicos from his party. And unfortunately, this would be bad for our country, whether Mark can see it or not.

Welfare reform needs tweaking

I was one of those critics of welfare reform back in the 1990s who feared that it would be a disaster, especially when the economy took a downturn (which it did as soon as the incompetent George W. Bush took charge).
So I was pleasantly surprised to see that my worst fears were not confirmed in this case.
The number of people on welfare plunged by 60 percent, employment among single mothers is up and child support collections have nearly doubled since the law was changed.
But while these changes have been good, there has been a slight uptick in the poverty rate among single women since Bush has been in office. One researcher says there has been a “disconcerting increase in the number of poor mothers with no obvious source of income.”
Some of the answers are obvious and once we get some responsible leadership in the White House they will likely be addressed quickly. We need to increase the minimum wage to catch up with a decade of inflation and make it a livable wage once again (without breaking the bank by giving a huge windfall of tax cuts to the super- ultra-wealthy). And if we are going to insist that these single mothers work, we must spend more on child care programs.
These are the kinds of things that can be done without reversing the positive aspects of the Clinton-era reforms.

There is no escape

In case you haven't heard, the authorities have finally arrested someone in connection with the 10-year-old murder investigation of Jon Benet Ramsey. And the only way you might not have heard is if you've been living under a rock all this past week.
Last night, CNN's web site ran one of its bright red banner alerts at the top of its page which are generally used for breaking news of the highest importance. I began reading that the plane carrying Ramsey's accused killer had .... (What?! The plane crashed?!, I thought. What could be so important?) .... landed at LA International Airport.

Oh My! Thank you for that bit of earthshattering news CNN.

Now this morning I see that the top-of-the-fold lead story in the San Antonio Express-News is giving me a detailed, minute-by-minute rundown of the entire plane flight including what the accused fellow ate and what he was wearing.

Absolutely appalling! And this story pushed down to the bottom of the page the news that snipers in Baghdad had opened fire on a Shiite Muslim religious procession killing 20 people and wounding 300. Ho-Hum. Just another day in lovely Iraq where freedom is on the march and the insurgents are in their last throes.

Theater of the Deaf is in trouble

Many years ago when I was just starting out in journalism I worked for a chain of weekly papers in Connecticut. One story that I particularly enjoyed writing was a feature about a unique theatrical group based in West Hartford that specializes in performing for deaf and hearing-impaired children. The National Theater of the Deaf put on several performances in the towns that I covered and it was a pure delight to watch the children enjoying lively theatrical performances that were geared specifically towards their special needs. Most of the actors in the troupe were also deaf.

So I was saddened last week to see this story in the NYT about the group’s recent financial troubles.

For nearly four decades it has provided a cultural bridge between the hearing and the hearing-impaired, but unless federal and state agencies come to some agreement about its financing, the National Theater of the Deaf may be unable to carry on much longer.

The NTD’s financial woes first became critical in late 2004 when the Bush Education Department notified them that the Republican Congress had eliminated a grant program that had been contributing $687,000 a year to the theater’s coffers.
Recently, though, Connecticut state lawmakers were preparing to come to the rescue with $200,000 in emergency funds intended to keep the theater going for another year or two. Unfortunately, the emergency funding is being held up after the inspector general for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) informed the head of NTD that they were calling in a $75,000 debt the theater owes on a 15-year-old federal grant.

Apparently, the NTD ran into financial difficulties in the early 1990s when a former executive director mismanaged some funds and left the theater unable to pay the old debt. The fact that it is being called in now is highly questionable. The NEA’s role is to promote the arts, not to enforce old budget deals that would result in shuttering one of the only theaters for the deaf in the country.
I, of course, blame President Bush for the NTD’s current fiscal crisis due to his mismanagement of the national budget - the tax cuts for the rich and the exploding deficits - that obviously led to the elimination of the grant program. But I am also suspicious that the NEA’s inspector general may also be a Bush appointee who is carrying out some twisted right-wing agenda with this sudden desire to collect on an old debt that should have been forgiven long ago. I could be wrong, but even if the guy is not a Bush appointee, surely the administration could do something to bail the NTD out of this predicament if they gave a damn about anything or anyone other than their wealthy campaign contributors and their massive tax cuts.

Chris who?

While visiting relatives in Lubbock last week, the gubernatorial race came up during a dinner conversation. Gov. Perry is actually from that part of the state and my wife’s aunt and uncle know Perry’s parents. However, while they tend to be fairly conservative, they expressed disatisfaction with his performance in office and seemed open to the idea of voting for someone else. They talked about Carole Keeton Strayhorn for a few minutes and didn’t seem terribly happy with her either, and Kinky Friedman seemed out of the question. Then there was a lull in the conversation.
Finally, I spoke up and said “What about the Democrat in the race?”
“Who is that?” they asked in all sincerity.
“Chris Bell,” I said.
Blank stares.
“Yep,” I concluded. “He’s the one who’s going to come in fourth.”

It may simply be unrealistic for Democrats to elect a governor in this state any time soon - although if Massachussetts and New York can have Republican governors, I don’t see why Texas can’t elect a Democrat. But putting a one-term former Congressman and political unknown in place as our nominee is clearly NOT the way to make any headway in winning statewide elections.

Santorum gets "Green" boost

Here is more reason for every true progressive to steer clear of the so-called Green Party.

Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a conservative -- except for the candidate himself.
The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of Rick Santorum's campaign (or their housemates). Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors and conservatives. Only three contributions, totaling $11,000, remained as possible legit donations.
Today, I confirmed that those came from GOP sources.

I’ve previously expressed my disdain and disgust for the Green Party here and here. But I will just say again that anyone who voted for the Green Party in 2000 was a fool and anyone who would still vote for them today is either being stupid or is totally dishonest about their intentions. The Green Party is nothing more than a tool to help “get Republicans elected every November.”

Lieberman’s loss

Just before I left on vacation I picked up the local paper and saw that syndicated columnist Cal Thomas was calling supporters of Connecticut Democratic Senate nominee Ned Lamont “Taliban Democrats,” while Vice President Dick Cheney was asserting that Lieberman’s primary loss was a victory for the “al-Qaeda types.”
So I’ve been stewing over this for a few days now. The Cal Thomas crack was highly ironic coming from a Hezbollah (Party of God) Republican such as himself. But the Cheney statement was just flat out offensive and should earn him a one-way ticket into political retirement. I believe Sen. Hillary Clinton had the best reaction to Cheney’s comment:

“I don’t take anything he says seriously anymore. I think that he has been a very counterproductive, even destructive, force in our country and I am very disheartened by the failure of leadership from the president and vice president.”

Indeed. But what to make of the primary loss by the former Democratic vice presidential nominee? Is this really such a radical and surprising move? Not really. Lieberman simply adopted too many positions that were out of tune with his constituency back home. It’s really a common malady in Washington and one that conservatives harp on all the time.
Look at it this way: Lieberman was one of the most conservative Democrats (at least on foreign policy) representing a Blue state. He was essentially a Red Democrat from a Blue state. There are lots of other Red Democrats - Ben Nelson, Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieau, Ken Salazar, etc. But they all hail from Red states. Likewise, you have a few (not as many) moderate or Blue Republicans - Lincoln Chafee, Olypia Snowe, Arlen Specter - but they all represent Blue states. You don’t have any Blue Republicans from Red states, and I don’t believe there were any other Red Democrats from Blue states. Lieberman was an anomaly. His demise in the primary should not have been a surprise once he took such a radically conservative position on the defining issue of this generation.

Now it is still possible that Lieberman could retain his seat by running a successful campaign as an independent, but I expect his bid will start to lose steam now that the media will be forced to give Lamont serious consideration.

Lock-step diversity

The editorial page at my old newspaper The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal has always irritated me. While in Lubbock during my vacation, I had the opportunity to catch up on a week’s worth of the local paper’s editorials and the thing that struck me was the diversity of the syndicated columnists that they use, or rather the lack thereof.
In a typical week, the paper runs eight nationally syndicated columns, plus three local columns and one from Austin. Of the eight nationally syndicated colunists, four are black males and four are women - two Hispanic, one Asian, and one white.
That’s quite a diverse lineup, obviously meant to balance out the fact that the paper’s editorial board is composed entirely of white males. However, while you may have diversity of color, gender and ethnicity, there is almost no diversity of opinion whatsoever. All but one of the eight syndicated columnists are hard-right conservatives. They have three black male conservatives - Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Larry Elder - (Leonard Pitts is the sole liberal); two Hispanic female conservatives - Linda Chavez and Kathryn Jean Lopez; Suzanne Fields of the Washington Times and the loathesome Michelle Malkin. I guess the biggest surprise is that they don’t run Ann Coulter.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’ve always thought that having a diversity of opinion on the editorial pages is a greater service to the readers than anything else.
This brings me to the larger issue that has always bugged me and that is the expectation that so-called liberal papers like the New York Times and the Washington Post must run a balanced editorial section with equal number of conservative columnists to the liberals, while conservative papers like the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times run solidly right-wing editorial sections without the slightest compunction.
Over at the NYT we get John Tierney and David Brooks while The Washington Post has made George Will and Charles Krauthammer into household names and the LA Times gives editorial space each week to Max Boot and Jonah Goldberg, among others. But the WSJ editorial pages and the Mooney Times are certifiably liberal-free. And I bet that if someone did a survey of newspapers across Texas, they would find that the Lubbock A-J is not alone in its lack of editorial diversity.

I’m back

We criss-crossed Texas last week on $3-a-gallon gasoline, driving first to Corpus Christi where we spent a cloudy morning at the beach and a sunny afternoon at the Texas State Aquarium. The next day we drove back to San Antonio to rest up for a day before heading off for a three-day trip to Lubbock to attend the wedding of my wife’s cousin’s oldest son.
We lived in Lubbock from 1995-2000, so it is always fun to go back and see how things have and have not changed. The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal where I used to work hasn’t changed much and many of the same people are still there.
The kids did amazingly well during the lengthy car trip and had great fun swimming at the hotel pools and playing with their cousins at my wife’s aunt and uncle’s house.
I have a lot that I would like to write about and will try to get to it as I have time.

On vacation

I'll be on vacation all this next week, so expect light posting.
I do want to say that I am excited about the prospect of a competitive race in my congressional district.
Of the possible candidates touted so far, I would take any of them over Henry Bonilla. However, my personal preference would be Art Hall, who is currently serving as my City Councilman and is unfortunately term-limted after this year.

I Miss My MTV

MTV officially turned 25 years old the other day, but you wouldn’t know it from watching the channel. That is apparently a closely held secret at the network which doesn’t want its target audience of adolescents to know that it was around long before most of them were born.
I was part of MTV’s target audience back when it first came out in 1981. I was turning 16 that summer and my family had just hooked up to cable TV for the first time. I had a little black and white television in my room that was permanently tuned to MTV throughout my latter high school years and I absorbed as many videos as I could.
I still remember coming home from school one evening shortly after our cable was hooked up and having one of my friends call to excitedly tell me that one of the Go-Gos videos was on.
Interestingly enough, back when it was getting started, MTV was relatively commercial free. I naively thought this was because we paid for cable and therefore didn’t have to watch commercials. Now I realize it was more likely due to the fact that the fledgling channel had not lured advertisers away from the big three networks at that early stage. But very soon I noticed that they would have the video jockeys or VJs hawking Snickers bars in between videos and before long there were just as many ads on cable as anywhere else.
MTV had a huge impact on my musical tastes during that time. I became a huge fan of The Police largely because of the video for “Every Little Thing She Does Is Magic.” Other favorites included Cheap Trick, the Go-Gos, J. Geils Band, Loverboy, Asia, Joan Jett, John Cougar (Mellencamp) and Rick Springfield. I also became very familiar with many other groups that I otherwise would probably never have been exposed to such as Adam Ant, Duran Duran, Madness, Men at Work, The Pretenders, Flock of Seagulls, Squeeze and many others.
When I went off to college in the Fall of ‘83 I missed out on the next couple years worth of MTV since freshmen and sophomores in the Corps of Cadets at Texas A&M were not allowed to have televisions in their rooms. By the time I got a TV in my junior year, MTV had changed significantly. All the original VJs I was familiar with were gone and they were busy phasing out the whole VJ format. Furthermore, the random and unstructured stringing of videos together that had at first seemed so novel and fresh was now being replaced with niche blocks of video programming with a heavy concentration on rap, heavy metal and alternative music, none of which particularly appealed to me at the time.
So my MTV viewing became much less frequent and by the time they introduced Beavis and Butthead as a regular feature on the network, I was about through with it. I had no interest in the reality programs that they pioneered or the inane Spring Break programming that would last all summer. I feel very fortunate that I totally missed out on seeing the Jackass series (which later became a movie that I have avoided seeing even though Richard Roeper of Ebert and Roeper fame gave it “thumbs up” the same year that he gave Lord of the Rings a thumbs down - Moron!).
Now, even the alternative VH-1 channel rarely shows videos. I feel disconnected from the current music scene because I don’t get to see the videos and can’t even find radio stations that will play current day music most of the time.
So I guess I am just too old now because I find MTV to be unwatchable. Thus I can understand why MTV would avoid celebrating its 25th anniversary. Because the folks like me who would care about it have pretty much the opinion best articulated by Beavis and Butthead: MTV Sucks.

End this madness

It is good to see that there are still some Republicans who do have a conscience.

Urging President Bush to turn all U.S. efforts toward "ending this madness," a leading Republican senator Monday broke with the Bush administration and called for an immediate cease-fire in the Mideast.
"The sickening slaughter on both sides must end and it must end now," Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel said. "President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop."

Unfortunately, even if Bush does call for a ceasefire at this point, it is clear that he is so weak diplomatically that we will be ignored by both sides.

CNN is just now reporting that the Israeli defense minister is claiming that the three-week bombing campaign has killed 300 Hezbollah fighters out of an estimated 2,000. Assuming that this is true, the question is whether it was worth the more than 500 civilian deaths, not to mention the wanton destruction of Lebanon’s civic infrastructure. And then one has to wonder if Hezbollah hasn’t gained 10 times that number of recruits since the Israeli bombing campaign began.

This was a seriously short-sighted move by the Israeli Defense Force and one that will most likely weaken its position in the Middle East for years to come. The mass destruction of Lebanon’s infrastructure will no doubt end up being repaired with much of the money coming from U.S. taxpayers. If there was any justice in the world, every penny of that money should come from the billions in foreign aid that we send to Israel every year. However, they will likely need all of that aid and more due to the precarious situation that this military misadventure has placed them in.

Beating my head against the wall

I have to admit that arguing with my friends over at All Things Conservative sometimes makes me feel just like the penguin in this cartoon. But sometimes that’s just what you have to do.

Look out, Nacho!

Last week the local E-N political cartoon Nacho Guarache ran a series of strips that tried to make light of the current crisis in the Middle East by having a “sleeper cell” of Hezbollah terrorists move in next door to the lead character.
In the final strip, seen above, we see Nacho smugly noting that he resolved the situation by calling on his friend, the Rev. John Hagee, “who knows some people.” The final frame has the cartoonish terrorists fleeing an onslaught of missiles fired by several Iraqi jet fighters.
Hagee is a local right-wing fundamentalist preacher, recently profiled by the Wall Street Journal, who take a hardline stance in support of Israel.

The thing that struck me about this Nacho cartoon, however, was that to be true to the actual situation in Lebanon right now, the Israeli fighters probably would have shot their missiles at the building where the Hezbollah militants were staying, thus killing not only the three terrorists, but also Nacho and all of his friends and family. I wonder if Leo Garza, the strip’s talented author, considered such an outcome when he penned the strip? Probably not.

The Israli response to the Hezbollah situation so far has been about as effective as going after cockroaches with a sledge hammer. A lot of incidental damage and very little evidence that you are actually eliminating the real problem.

Hezbollah made me do it

Over the weekend, an Israeli airstrike in Southern Lebanon struck a residential building in Qana killing 56 civilians, mostly children.
The outrage over this latest massacre of innocent civilians is almost deafening overseas and it forced the hawkish Israeli government to agree to a 48 hour ceasefire (which they promptly broke) to allow any other civilians time to flee the area.
If they had agreed to the ceasefire last week, perhaps this would not have happened. And yet, as disturbing as this latest tragedy is, it has done nothing to sate the enthusiasm of those here in the U.S. who believe Israel has the right to bomb the hell out of the entire country of Lebanon (and any other country it chooses) as payback for the actions of a small (but growing) band of militant Islamic extremists.
A ceasefire would be a sign of weakness, they argue, and would only allow Hezbollah to recharge its batteries and recoup its strength.
Besides that, they say, the attack was justified because Hezbollah was firing rockets from that area. In other words, the ‘devil’ made us do it.

I’m not sure what the Israeli government thinks it is actually accomplishing with this sustained attack on the Lebanese countryside. So far, Hezbollah does not appear to have been crippled - as is the stated goal of both Israel and the U.S. - however the image of both countries has been severely tarnished in the eyes of the rest of the world and that could mean even worse problems for us down the road.
As the Washington Post notes today the crisis could undercut Bush's long-term goals in the region.

The Israeli bombs that slammed into the Lebanese village of Qana yesterday did more than kill three dozen children and a score of adults. They struck at the core of U.S. foreign policy in the region and illustrated in heart-breaking images the enormous risks for Washington in the current Middle East crisis.
With each new scene of carnage in southern Lebanon, outrage in the Arab world and Europe has intensified against Israel and its prime sponsor, raising the prospect of a backlash resulting in a new Middle East quagmire for the United States, according to regional specialists, diplomats and former U.S. officials.

Although the United States has urged Israel to use restraint, it has also strongly defended the military assaults as a reasonable response to Hezbollah rocket attacks, a position increasingly at odds with allies that see a deadly overreaction. Analysts think that if the war drags on, as appears likely, it could leave the United States more isolated than at any time since the Iraq invasion three years ago and hindered in its foreign policy goals such as shutting down Iran's nuclear program and spreading democracy around the world.

"The arrows are all pointing in the wrong direction," said Richard N. Haass, who was President Bush's first-term State Department policy planning director. "The biggest danger in the short run is it just increases frustration and alienation from the United States in the Arab world. Not just the Arab world, but in Europe and around the world. People will get a daily drumbeat of suffering in Lebanon and this will just drive up anti-Americanism to new heights."

Bombing the U.N.

A most disturbing story today
about an Israeli bomb or bombs that struck a long-established U.N. facility in southern Lebanon killing four unarmed U.N. peacekeepers.
The Israeli’s are saying it was an accident, and perhaps it way, but My Gosh! that was some accident. If initial news reports are correct, the U.N. observers called an Israeli military liaison about 10 times in the six hours before they died to warn that the aerial attacks were getting close to their position. Despite this, they were killed when an Israeli bomb made a direct hit on their bunker.
And then there is this bit of news:

Lebanese security sources told CNN Wednesday at least three precision-guided bombs were dropped by Israeli aircraft on the U.N. observers' bunker.
A Western diplomat familiar with preliminary U.N. assessments of the scene also said that it appeared the munition that hit the bunker was precision-guided.

A direct hit by three precision guided missiles???!!! And this after they had made nearly a dozen desperate calls to their official Israeli contact saying ‘please don’t shoot us.’??!!?? The U.N. facility was clearly marked as such and well know for some time.
So somehow I find it hard to believe that this was just a case of “oopsie!” by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). So when U.N. Secretary-general Kofi Annan calls it an "apparently deliberate" Israeli airstrike, it seems like he may have some justification.

And recall that this is not the first time the Israeli’s have claimed to have accidently attacked a friendly target in the midst of a battle.

War supporters are taking the position that Israel can do no wrong and are dismissing any suggestion that the attack was anything other than a mistake. However, if it was truly a mistake, what does this say about Israeli claims that they are trying to limit civilian casualties with surgical strikes against Hezbollah military installations? It would seem instead that they are just shooting the hell out of anything and everything over there.

It is high time for this military escalation to be wound back down. Unfortunately, the first stab at a peace deal has ended in failure, which is really no surprise considering this administration’s pathetic track record with diplomacy.

Election year grumbling

This is supposed to be a good year for Democrats. By every measure, the signs are pointing toward big Democratic gains in the mid-term elections. President Bush’s approval rating has been stuck in the mid-30s for a couple of months now, the war in Iraq is every bit the quagmire that Democrats warned it would be, gasoline prices are edging toward $4 a gallon and the domestic economy, while not currently in recession, is nothing to write home about.
And yet I’m still in a particularly pessimistic mood about Democratic prospects this year. Maybe it is because I’m living in a Red State where the Democratic candidate for governor is in serious danger of coming in fourth behind Kinky Friedman. Or maybe it’s because I see all the big time liberal bloggers out there right now obsessing over defeating a Democrat - Joe Lieberman - who should he lose his primary race will probably turn around and run as an Independent - and win.
If I had to make a prediction right now, I would say that Democrats will probably fall short of taking either the House or the Senate. I don’t doubt that they will pick up seats this year, but probably not enough to wrest control away from the Republican yahoos who have been screwing things up so royally. I hope that I am wrong, but I would have to bet that the Republican’s advantages of incumbency and corporate financing will continue to prop them up.

From very bad to worse

More than 100 people a day are dying violent deaths in Iraq, according to the U.N.

An average of more than 100 civilians per day were killed in Iraq last month, the highest monthly tally of violent deaths since the fall of Baghdad, the United Nations reported today. The death toll, drawn from Iraqi government agencies, was the most precise measurement of civilian deaths provided by any government organization since the invasion and represented a dramatic increase over daily media reports. United Nations officials also said that the number of violent deaths had been steadily increasing since at least last summer. In the first six months of this year, the civilian death toll jumped more than 77 percent, from 1,778 in January to 3,149 in June, the organization said.

The news is so bad that it is finally forcing some Republican lawmakers to actually face reality!

Faced with almost daily reports of sectarian carnage in Iraq, congressional Republicans are shifting their message on the war from speaking optimistically of progress to acknowledging the difficulty of the mission and pointing up mistakes in planning and execution.

"It's like after Katrina, when the secretary of homeland security was saying all those people weren't really stranded when we were all watching it on TV," said Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-N.C.). "I still hear about that. We can't look like we won't face reality."

The shift is subtle, but Republican lawmakers acknowledge that it is no longer tenable to say the news media are ignoring the good news in Iraq and painting an unfair picture of the war.

Oh, my! It is no longer tenable to just blame the media??? I know a few conservative bloggers who will be most unhappy to hear that news.

Some Republican lawmakers are even beginning to sound like Sen. John Kerry or Rep. John Murtha!

Rep. Gil Gutknecht (R-Minn.), once a strong supporter of the war, returned from Iraq this week declaring that conditions in Baghdad were far worse "than we'd been led to believe" and urging that troop withdrawals begin immediately.

Prepared to spin

Here is an interesting addendum to the blustering last week about the supposed treason by media outlets reporting on the Treasury Department’s program that tracks terrorist financial activities:

That Times Leak Was No Surprise
Before you jump in with those heaping scorn on the New York Times for using a leak to reveal the secret Treasury program to search financial transactions for terrorist activities, know this: The Treasury Department expected it to leak. When the program was developed in 2003, a press plan was included. The goal: Get out front with the spin that there are safeguards to prevent snooping on private accounts, that it is legal, and that there are big benefits to it. "These three elements needed to be in the first-day story," says an insider. The plan worked. When the Times told Treasury it was running the story, top Treasury aides were OK'd to talk to the Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, and Los Angeles Times, which presented the three points. "It was a textbook case of very good PR management," says the insider.

So not only did the administration not try and keep the story from being published by refusing to cooperate with the media, they had a plan all ready on how they would spin the story once it leaked out - which they assumed would happen all along.

Radical Right

Just got “Conservatives Without Conscience” by John Dean for my birthday. Dean, legal counsel to Richard Nixon, makes the same point I’ve been making for sometime - today’s so called “conservatives” are not conservative at all. They are radicals.

Dean summarizes the book in this Boston Globe op-ed piece:

Contemporary conservatism and its influence on the Republican Party was, until recently, a mystery to me. The practitioners' bludgeoning style of politics, their self-serving manipulation of the political processes, and their policies that focus narrowly on perceived self-interest -- none of this struck me as based on anything related to traditional conservatism. Rather, truth be told, today's so-called conservatives are quite radical....
I can find nothing conservative about the Bush/Cheney White House, which has created a Nixon ``imperial presidency" on steroids, while acting as if being tutored by the best and brightest of the Cosa Nostra.

I’ve just started reading the book and the opening chapter talks about how conservatives today are not even sure how to define conservatism. But even though people are not sure how to define it, they have a good reaction to the term and more people are willing to embrace that label than the villified term “liberal.”
I’ve noted many times how I tend to be “conservative” in my personal habits, but “liberal” in how I treat other people. How you treat other people is the key, in my opinion. I can forgive people for their own personal foibles, but I have a hard time when they are in turn intolerant of the foibles of others.
If being conservative means being prudent and efficient with government resources, then I am all for it. But if it means spending billions on military misadventures overseas while being tightfisted with spending here in our own country, then I have a big problem with it.
It grates me the way many conservatives today hyperventilate about patriotism and go on and on about how much they love their country, when in truth the only thing they really love is the symbolism (like the flag) while actually despising most of the people and the institutions that make up the country.

Is Bush losing it?

Or is this just how he normally expresses himself when not reading from a prepared text?

One of those pesky open microphones caught President Bush in a foul-mouthed tirade against Hezbollah the other day.

"See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this s--- and it's over," Bush told British Prime Minister Tony Blair during the closing lunch at the Group of Eight summit.

Generally, it is a sign of a poor intellect when someone has to routinely resort to using swear words in their conversations. It means they don’t have a proper command of the language to adequately express themselves and so they fall back on these common words that are considered offensive in polite society. It is sad, really, to know that this is how our President talks to foreign leaders when he is not being scripted by his handlers.

Middle East mess

Civilian casualties in Lebanon are up to 86, including 16 children just today. And the Israelis don't seem to have any intention of letting up anytime soon. President Bush isn't even bothering to suggest that they use restraint on civilians anymore.
In fact, most conservatives act like this is great news. Why is that? Never mind that the escalation has caused the Dow Jones average to plummet, wiping out all of the gains for the entire year, and as oil prices surge towards $80 a barrel we could soon find ourselves paying $4 a gallon for gasoline.

But none of this phases most conservatives - not the civilian deaths nor the economic carnage back here in Bushland. I think Kevin Drum comes closest to explaining the conservative response:

"...most conservatives simply take the uncomplicated stance that Palestinians are terrorists and that Israel should always respond to provocation in the maximal possible way. The fact that this hasn't worked very well in the past doesn't deter them."

And apparently all Lebanese and all Syrians are terrorists, too. Not to mention all Iranians, most Iraqis and just about anyone of Arabic descent. Therefore, civilian deaths in those countries do not matter and they don't merit human treatment when captured by our side either.

It is a sad situation over in the Middle East right now. The folks who touted the Iraq war as some kind of boon to Democracy across the region have a lot of explaining to do right now. Instead of a domino effect of democratization springing up everywhere, we have increased militancy by terrorist groups that are threatening to overthrow the more moderate governments in those countries, not unlike the way Hamas did in Palestine.

Hatfields and McCoys

I’ve been hesitant to comment on the latest fighting in the Middle East, knowing that when I do I will probably be attacked for being anti-Israel or some other such nonsense. But I am thoroughly disgusted right now with the Israeli response to the aggression from Hamas and Hezbollah.
Israel is the strongest and most developed country in the region, both economically and militarily, and thus they should be setting the example for others to follow. By this I mean that they should use more restraint in dealing with these militant groups yapping at their heels and not meet every provocation with an equal and more devestating provocation.
And yet Ehmud Olmert, the new Israeli PM, has let loose the dogs of war at the latest provocation by the militants on their border. Many people will say this is entirely justified, but I believe it will only further enflame tensions in the region and force Israel into an ever increasingly defensive posture. It is unfortunate, because Ariel Sharon would probably have had more leeway to use restraint, but it appears that Olmert feels it necessary to take the “eye for an eye” approach to a whole other level. I just have one question, though. When has “getting tough” like this ever worked to resolve all their problems in the past? I have no sympathy for the Hamas and Hezbollah militants, but wreaking havoc on the entire Lebanese population will only serve to radicalize that population as it has done to the Palestinians and will ultimately drive more and more people into the arms of the militants. Al Quaeda, I’m sure, is overjoyed at the prospect.

I essentially agree with this commenter from TPM:

The larger points in the current Israel/Palestine/Lebanon crisis are two: Olmert's apparent lack of "maturity" as PM for lack of a better word, and seeming inability to measure his govt's response, has escalated the situation close to a point of no return. Given the harsh rhetoric and extreme measures being taken it appears the the situation is being run by the war-makers in the cabinet and there seems to be no countervailing voice of reason, moderation or diplomacy. The other is that the crisis has exposed in stark relief the US' utter inability to influence the situation. Bush has nothing to offer, having bought wholesale into the rhetoric of "terror"-he can't ask for moderation, he can't use any bargaining chips, he can't bully Olmert in any of the ways his predecessors have done.

Bush’s response during this ordeal has been truly pathetic.
The most he will do is to meekly ask Israel to “try to limit civilian casualties” as they continue to step up their attacks.
“Hey guys, Try not to kill too many innocent civilians over there, OK? Thanks.”

Maybe someone else will step up to the plate and try and talk sense to these people. It’s obviously not going to come from this administration. We have done nothing to promote peace and stability in the Middle East and have, by contrast, only stirred the pot of resentment with our unprovoked invasion of Iraq.

Poll: Americans want Democrats in power

Woo Hoo!!

With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule.

Let’s just hope that this pans out on election day.

The same poll also shows President Bush’s approval rating has slipped back into the mid-30s after climbing briefly back up to the low-40s.

We need a new law

So Robert Novak has now acknowledged publicly what Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew long ago, that White House consigliere Karl Rove was one of his sources for his infamous column that exposed one of our covert CIA operatives.
And yet, even knowing that Rove blabbed to Novak, Time Magazine’s Marc Cooper, and who knows how many other reporters, it still appears that he will not be charged in connection with this crime. How can that be?
The most obvious explanation is that Fitzgerald has determined that the law has so many provisions and loopholes in it that he cannot make a case stick against any of the conspirators for reasons he has yet to reveal. This has resulted in great fanfare in conservative circles (along with sighs of relief), but it should garner a different reaction from folks who care anything about the security of our nation. The law needs to be changed.
We cannot tolerate having our covert agents and their operations left vulnerable to exposure by politically malevolent presidential administrations in the future. Once the outcome of this case is final, we will need to draft a new law to better protect our covert operatives so that they will never again become pawns in a vengeful political game.

Tangled Up Tubes

Sen. Ted Stevens, the Octogenarian Republican from Alaska, gave a hilarious reason last week for why he is opposed to net neutrality.

Now, Steven’s explanation has been immortalized for all time in a remix version set to some snazzy electronica music.

Who’s on First?

The American League has won eight straight All Star Games since 1996 and it looks like they will win another one tonight.
Here is the lineup:

American League
Ichiro Suzuki, Mariners, RF
Derek Jeter, Yankees, SS
David Ortiz, Red Sox, 1B
Alex Rodriguez, Yankees, 3B
Vladimir Guerrero, Angels, LF
Ivan Rodriguez, Tigers, C
Vernon Wells, Blue Jays, CF
Mark Loretta, Red Sox, 2B
Kenny Rogers, Tigers, P
National League
Alfonso Soriano, Nationals, LF
Carlos Beltran, Mets, CF
Albert Pujols, Cardinals, 1B
Jason Bay, Pirates, RF
Edgar Renteria, Braves, SS
David Wright, Mets, 3B
Chase Utley, Phillies, 2B
Paul Lo Duca, Mets, C
Brad Penny, Dodgers, P

I’m not even familiar with half the players on the National League team. I’m also disappointed that the defending National League Champion Houston Astros are not represented in the starting lineup. Of course, the World Series Champion Chicago White Sox were likewise shut out of the starting lineup for the American League.
But the lineup the American League does have looks like a modern update of Murderer's Row.
The Post article notes that since MLB began awarding homefield advantage for the World Series to the winner of the contest, the American League has dominated the series and swept the World Series the last two years.

Conservatives heart Kennedy-McCain

Conservatives are rallying behind Ted Kennedy on immigration reform.
Yes, you read that right.

A group of 31 prominent conservatives signed an opinion piece in today’s Wall Street Journal that essentially agrees with the major tenants of the Kennedy- McCain Immigration Bill.

Funny how these pro-immigration conservatives have to run in tight packs like this to keep from being picked off one-by-one by the ravenous anti-immigrant hyenas of the far-right. They also try and couch their support for rational, common-sense immigration reform as if it were blessed in advance by Saint Ronny himself.

Unfortunately, this Congress has already squandered its best opportunity to get immigration reform legislation passed this year before we slouch into the mid-term election cycle.

Do nothing Congress

I suppose with the group of right-wing yahoos currently running things in Washington, this is pretty much a blessing: Congress has many unfinished tasks.

US lawmakers returning today from a weeklong break will resume work on a long list of unfinished -- and possibly insurmountable -- tasks that could help decide whether voters will reelect them in November.

I’m not sure who other than sadomasochists could possibly justify returning these Republicans to office in November. Even a hardline conservatives like former House Republican leader Dick Armey is disgusted by this Congress’ inability to get anything done.

``I'm not sure what this Congress has accomplished," said Dick Armey, who is now with FreedomWorks, which advocates lower taxes and less government.

In the first two-thirds of the 2006 legislative session, the Boston Globe reports, Congress has passed two major bills: renewal of the Patriot Act and an extension of $70 billion in federal tax cuts. That’s it. What a pathetic record of non-accomplishment. Political scientist Larry Sabato sums things up pretty well:

``Historically, this is certainly not a Congress that will be remembered," said Larry Sabato, of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. ``There is just not much there."

Instead of tackling serious issues like the dozen spending bills that have to be addressed by Oct. 1 or legislation needed to shore up pension protections for 44 million workers, we have watched lawmakers waste time posturing over flag burning amendments and gay marriage.
Republican lawmakers should be happy that they are not working in the private sector or else they would have been laid off a long time ago.

Nothing to brag about

Think Progress spells out what should be obvious to everyone. The Bush administration has presided over an anemic economy while at the same time exploding our national deficit. Recent efforts by the administration to put their economic accomplishments in a good light suddenly pale when placed in the proper context.

Let’s set aside for a moment that the “fact sheet” conveniently ignores the 22 months of jobs losses that proceeded August 2003. Instead, let’s put Bush’s job record since August 2003 in perspective:

1. Monthly job growth since August 2003 is 50% lower than the average of President Clinton’s entire term. Since August 2003, job growth has averaged 160,000 per month. During Clinton’s eight years in office job growth averaged 236,000 per month.
2. Real wages have fallen since August 2003. The average worker’s real wages were twenty cents lower in June 2006 than they were in August 2003.

Any way you slice it, Bush’s economic policy has resulted in slower job growth and lower wages. That’s nothing to brag about.

FOIA a terrorist tool?

Is the Freedom of Information Act the next target of the Bush administration in its neverending War on Terror? FOIA which has been with us since 1966 has suddenly become the focus of forces looking to clamp down on our personal freedoms here in the United States under the guise of protecting us from future terrorist attacks.
Most recently, they have enlisted the Center for Terrorism Law at St. Mary's University here in San Antonio to study ways to limit the scope of FOIA.

The Defense Department is sending St. Mary's University School of Law $1 million to help fight terrorism by studying ways to limit the scope of the Freedom of Information Act, a landmark open government law that celebrated its 40th anniversary Tuesday.

The fellow who will be heading up the study is Jeffrey Addicott, an Associate Professor of Law at St. Mary’s who serves as director of the center. Addicott is a frequent commenter on Fox News and has authored a number of academic works including this one that claimed that Bush's military tribunals are Constitutional. Oops!

Addicott says "the purpose of the yearlong project is to find ways to rewrite the law to prevent terrorists from getting sensitive information about water, sewer, electricity and transportation systems."

The project's end product will be a "model" statute that state governments or Congress can adopt, he said.
"The mission is to balance increase in security with civil liberties, which are precious," said Addicott, a former legal adviser in the Army Special Forces. But "in a time of war, balance goes toward security."

Hmmmm. Balance goes toward security. I guess that sounds reasonable. But is it really? The E-N article goes on to quote a couple of officials who raise objections to this new study, inlcuding my old boss from The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, Randy Sanders, who is now heading up The Freedom of Information Foundation of Texas.

"It seems like we're just losing all our freedoms in the name of homeland security, and I just wonder where the real threat is," Sanders said. "We're not going to keep terrorists from finding out about power plants and water supplies by tightening the Freedom of Information Act."

In the past, Addicott has expressed his view that civil liberties need to be curtailed in the "war against terrorism."

(Addicott) said the USA Patriot Act, which makes it easier for law enforcement to conduct surveillance and obtain records, doesn't go far enough to protect the nation.
"If you want to shift toward security, you have to give a little on civil liberties," Addicott said. "People who don't want to give an inch on civil liberties are dooming us to a police state - the thing they dread most."

Is he quite sure that we will only have to "give an inch?" Hasn't he ever heard the old addage about "give an inch, take a mile." It's a favorite among conservatives arguing against the legalization of gay marriage.
Interestingly enough, this article goes on to quote Gerald Goldstein, a nationally known criminal defense lawyer from San Antonio, who challenges Addicott's views and accuses him of using scare tactics to advance his goals.

"I'm not suggesting he's not bright and totally bereft of foundation for his opinions," Goldstein said. "I am going to suggest that he is willing to set upon a path that engages in scare tactics. This kind of rhetoric only fuels the flames of paranoia."

In the same article, Addicott is quoted saying that "Americans have hit the snooze button on the alarm and gone back to sleep after Sept. 11," he said. "I'm just saying, 'Hey, we're still at war.'"
And here is what he has to say in today's E-N article:

(Addicott) said he believes it's only a matter of time before terrorists figure out how to hack into computers that run the nation's infrastructure.
So far, Addicott said, he doesn't know of any terrorists who have used freedom of information laws to get such information, but he believes it is inevitable that they will.
"They don't need bombs anymore," he said. "They can hack in and tell the Hoover Dam to release the water."

Hack into the computer that controls Hoover Dam and tell it to release the water. Hmmmmmm. I think Goldstein may have a point. This certainly sounds like he is "fueling the flames of paranoia" here.

As for the terrorists not needing bombs anymore, I think we figured that out a while back. All they needed to pull off the devestation from 9/11 was to sneak a few box cutters onto some planes. That and the element of surprise.
They didn't need to do any elaborate computer hacking and they certainly did not have to file any FOIA requests to pull off 9/11.

As Paul McMasters, a public information expert at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., says in the E-N story, reconciling discrepancies in law "is not a bad idea."
"But for this to be done at the direction of a federal agency where secrecy is paramount and where confusion is frequent gives one pause," he adds.

And all of this under the direction of an administration with a track record for gross incompetence. I don't see anything good coming out of it.

Happy Birthday to Me

Today is my 41st birthday. My wife surprised me at work by dropping by at lunchtime with the kids in tow bringing a cookie cake that she made and a balloon. We spent yesterday, the Fourth, at the zoo and had a really good time. My little boy is going to turn 3 soon and my little girl is seven months.
On Sunday we decided to go see the movie Cars (the earliest possible showing) and the kids did extremely well. Isabel slept through the whole thing in her car seat and Nathan sat in my lap and was enthralled with the whole film. Pixar is a national treasure and I’m glad the folks at Disney decided to wise up and maintain their relationship with the company. It was the first time Nathan had seen a movie in a theater (not counting the 3-D shorts we saw at Disney World last year). Nevertheless, we aren’t planning to do this very often. Watching movies in theaters will continue to be a rarity for me for the next several years at least.

No pardon for Ken Lay

I take no pleasure in the news that Ken Lay has apparently died from a massive heart attack. I was glad when he was found guilty on most counts for the Enron debacle, but as an avowed opponent of the death penalty I would never have wished this fate upon him.
I was actually looking forward to seeing President Bush squirm over the question of whether or not to issue Lay a pardon at the end of his term. After all, as one of the biggest financial backers of Bush’s political career, Ken Lay probably more than anyone else without the last name of Bush, could be credited with helping to put George W. Bush in the White House.

Censorship at UIW

The dean of library services at the University of the Incarnate Word (UIW) here in San Antonio has canceled the school’s subscription to the New York Times.
He did so “to protest articles exposing a secret government program that monitors international financial transactions in the hunt for terrorists.”

"Since no one elected the New York Times to determine national security policy, the only action I know to register protest for their irresponsible action (treason?) is to withdraw support of their operations by canceling our subscription as many others are doing," Mendell D. Morgan Jr. wrote Wednesday in an e-mail to library staffers. "If enough do, perhaps they will get the point."

This is nuts. It’s the kind of thing I would expect from Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, not a liberal arts school here in the Alamo City. Oops, sorry, apparently it is now a conservative arts school. After hearing all the partisan ranting from rightwing bloggers and the phony outrage from Bush and Cheney over this story, I’m more convinced than ever that the Bush administration had something to do with getting it disseminated in the first place. I think it was clearly in their interest to let the public know about the anti-terrorism activities the administration has undertaken, especially during an election year when they are suffering in the polls. And then turning around and criticizing the media is a great way for them to fire up their base of supporters. This has all the earmarks of a Karl Rove political operation and it has apparently worked like a charm.

No word yet on whether Mr. Morgan has also canceled the school’s subscription to the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times, since all those papers ran the same story on the same day. I’m also curious to see if he will cancel the school’s subscription to the local Express-News since they subscribe to the New York Times news service and frequently reprint stories from the Times.

I was glad to read further down in the article that library staffers and some students at UIW were outraged by Mr. Morgan’s act of censorship. I also found it interesting that Mr. Morgan was conveniently unavailable for comment after pulling his little stunt because he was “on vacation.” Hmmm. A wingnut and a coward. How typical. I guess he figures students at UIW can get all their news from Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh just like he does.

Somehow I get the feeling that UIW will soon be looking for a new dean of library services.

A return to our fundamental values

I like this headline at CNN right now - “Supreme Court voids Bush’s ‘blank check’”

This was a very reassuring court decision today. It means we are still a nation of laws, and we still strive to be the “good guys” wearing the white hats. Commander Charles Swift sums it up nicely.

Cmdr. Charles Swift, the Navy lawyer assigned by the military to represent Mr. Hamdan, said at a televised news conference held outside the Supreme Court that the logical next step would be for Mr. Hamdan to be tried either by a traditional military court martial, as provided for under the Geneva Convention, or by a federal court.
He called today's ruling "a return to our fundamental values."
"That return marks a high-water point," Commander Swift said. "It shows that we can't be scared out of who we are, and that's a victory, folks."

Breathtaking Waste and Fraud

Two stories in the NYTimes the other day merit further comment as they pile up further evidence that Bush is indeed the Worst. President. Ever.

The first titled 'Breathtaking' Waste and Fraud in Hurricane Aid describes the complete and total collapse of fiscal control and oversight by the federal government in the aftermath of the Katrina disaster.

Among the many superlatives associated with Hurricane Katrina can now be added this one: it produced one of the most extraordinary displays of scams, schemes and stupefying bureaucratic bungles in modern history, costing taxpayers up to $2 billion.

Wow! $2 billion down the drain because the incompetent Bush administration can’t get its act together. Imagine if something like this had happened while Democrats were in power? Do you think it would have been a one-day story generating little more than a collective shrug from the establishment media as if to say “What else is new?”

"The blatant fraud, the audacity of the schemes, the scale of the waste — it is just breathtaking," said Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, and chairwoman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.

Of course, something like this would not have happened during the Clinton administration because Democrats actually take governing seriously. They put competent and knowledgeable people in place at agencies like FEMA who actually know what they are doing and take their jobs seriously. Republicans see government as an impediment to their buddies in private industry who are just trying to make a profit. Their objective is to weaken government oversight and controls as much as possible and in the case of FEMA they succeeded beyond their wildest expectations.

Officials at the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the American Red Cross acknowledged that their systems were overwhelmed and tried to create new ones on the fly.
"We did, in fact, put into place never-before-used and untested processes," Donna M. Dannels, acting deputy director of recovery at FEMA, told a House panel this month. "Clearly, because they were untested, they were more subject to error and fraud."

You think so, huh. Some might argue that this outcome was inevitable, but that is not necessarily so.

"There are tools that are available to get money quickly to individuals and to get disaster relief programs running quickly without seeing so much fraud and waste," said Gregory D. Kutz, managing director of the forensic audits unit at the G.A.O. "But it wasn't really something that FEMA put a high priority on. So it was easy to commit fraud without being detected."

Not a high priority. There’s an understatement.
The story goes on to note that “there are bigger cases of government waste or fraud in United States history.” But interestingly enough, all of their examples occurred during the George W. Bush administration. Imagine that!

The Treasury Department, for example, estimated in 2005 that Americans in a single year had improperly been granted perhaps $9 billion in unjustified claims under the Earned-Income Tax Credit. The Department of Health and Human Services in 2001 estimated that nearly $12 billion in Medicare benefit payments in the previous year had been based on improper or fraudulent complaints.
Auditors examining spending in Iraq also have documented hundreds of millions in questionable spending or abuse. But Mr. Kutz of the accountability office said that in all of his investigative work, he had never encountered the range of abuses he has seen with Hurricane Katrina.

The other story of note is the one that reveals the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has relaxed its enforcement of food and drug safety laws by more than 50 percent since the Bush regime came to power.

The number of warning letters sent to companies in violation of federal food and drug safety laws has fallen by more than half under the Bush administration, according to an investigative report released Monday by a Democratic lawmaker.
The drop in enforcement actions by the Food and Drug Administration occurred even as agency inspectors continued to turn up a relatively steady number of industry violations, said Rep. Henry Waxman.
''Americans have relied on FDA to ensure the safety of their food and drugs for 100 years,'' the California Democrat said. ''But under the Bush administration, enforcement efforts have plummeted and serious violations are ignored. FDA can't do its job when its enforcement arm is tied behind its back.''