Lao-Tsu would be proud

Judo-flip the Republicans' bitch-slap theory of electoral politics

With respect to what's coming on Iran, what is in order is a little honesty, just as was the case with the Social Security debate a year ago. The only crisis with Iran is the crisis with the president's public approval ratings. Period. End of story. The Iranians are years, probably as long as a decade away, and possibly even longer from creating even a limited yield nuclear weapon. Ergo, the only reason to ramp up a confrontation now is to help the president's poll numbers.

Speaking truthiness to power

[update 2] Even more truthiness! The video posted below was a partial. The full clip can be found here.

Everything you wanted to say to the president but couldn't has now been said to his face by Colbert - and apparently Bush didn't leave happy. [update] video here You MUST WATCH THIS VIDEO. The man knows how to bring it, incredible. There is palpable nervousness in the air - he rips the press corps as much as the president and not too many people are laughing.

Colbert, who spoke in the guise of his talk show character, who ostensibly supports the president strongly, urged the Bush to ignore his low approval ratings, saying they were based on reality, “and reality has a well-known liberal bias.”

He attacked those in the press who claim that the shake-up at the White House was merely re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. “This administration is soaring, not sinking,” he said. “If anything, they are re-arranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg.”

Colbert told Bush he could end the problem of protests by retired generals by refusing to let them retire. He compared Bush to Rocky Balboa in the “Rocky” movies, always getting punched in the face—“and Apollo Creed is everything else in the world.”

Turning to the war, he declared, "I believe that the government that governs best is a government that governs least, and by these standards we have set up a fabulous government in Iraq."

He noted former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in the crowd, and that he had brought " Valerie Plame." Then, pretending to be worried that he had named her, he corrected himself, as Bush aides might do, "Uh, I mean... he brought Joseph Wilson's wife." He might have "dodged the bullet," as prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald wasn't there.

Colbert also made biting cracks about missing WMDs, “photo ops” on aircraft carriers and at hurricane disasters, melting glaciers and Vice President Cheney shooting people in the face. He advised the crowd, "if anybody needs anything at their tables, speak slowly and clearly on into your table numbers and somebody from the N.S.A. will be right over with a cocktail. "

Observing that Bush sticks to his principles, he said, "When the president decides something on Monday, he still believes it on Wednesday - no matter what happened Tuesday."

Searching this blog

I realized that it wasn't possible to search this blog like the old version, so I found out how it is possible to Search This Blog. I'll put a link on the side soon.

Strike to support undocumented people's legalization

May 1st

We are clling No Work, No School, No Sales, and No Buying, and also to have rallies around symbols of economic trade in your areas (stock exchanges, anti-immigrant corporations, etc.) at May 1st to protest the anti-immigrant bill.

On May 1, we will wear "white" a T-Shirt and/or white arm bands, we can paint and write our political demands (and creative arts) at the T-shirt go to rally, protest, strike, vigil, work or school--we will have a ocean of white T-shirts with our political demands from east coast to west coast, at the street, work place, school, bus station & store... and our voice will be LOUD AND CLEAR AND CANNOT BE SILENT FOR EVER!

We will settle for nothing less than full amnesty and dignity for the millions of undocumented workers presently in the U.S. We believe that increased enforcement is a step in the wrong direction and will only serve to facilitate more tragedies along the Mexican-U.S. border in terms of deaths and family separation.

Don't forget to sing the US national anthem in English not Spanish because The Decider has decided. Man, some people sure are thin-skinned.

Help your mother

With some green shopping

Diapers that you can flush down the toilet

Solar powering your ipod

Biodegradable & compostable cutlery made from corn

Old fashioned Milk paint made without volatile organic compounds

Living With War

Listen to the new Neil Young Album

Circumcision Studied in Africa as AIDS Preventive

Now a growing number of clinicians and policy makers in the region are pointing to a simple and possibly potent weapon against new infections: circumcision for men.

Armed with new studies suggesting that male circumcision can reduce the chance of H.I.V. infection in men, and perhaps in women, health workers in two southern African nations are pressing to make circumcisions broadly available to meet what they call a burgeoning demand.

The validity of the approach is still being tested. But in Lusaka, the capital of Zambia, surgeons at the University Teaching Hospital began offering circumcisions for about $3 some 18 months ago and are urging the government to expand the service nationwide. Dr. Kasonde Bowa, a urologist at the hospital, says about 400 patients a month request the procedure — eight times as many as the surgeons can accommodate.

True faith

Clergy in the Nation's Capital and Across the Country Pray for Lower Gas Prices

Patience

Prosecutor Weighs Charges Against Rove in Leak Case

WASHINGTON, April 27 — Patrick J. Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case, is expected to decide in the next two to three weeks whether to bring perjury charges against Karl Rove, the powerful adviser to President Bush, lawyers involved in the case said Thursday.

With the completion of Mr. Rove's fifth appearance before the grand jury on Wednesday, Mr. Fitzgerald is now believed to have assembled all of the facts necessary to determine whether to seek an indictment of Mr. Rove or drop the case.

Lawyers in the case said Mr. Fitzgerald would spend the coming days reviewing the transcript of Mr. Rove's three hours of testimony on Wednesday and weigh it against his previous statements to the grand jury as well as the testimony of others, including a sworn statement that Mr. Rove's lawyer gave to the prosecutor earlier this year. The lawyers were granted anonymity so they could speak about the internal legal deliberations in Mr. Rove's case.

Rush Booked

Rush plea-bargins

Check out the Rush Booking Blotter

Protecting the constitution

11 House members (Democrats) to sue (Bush Administration) over budget bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — Eleven House Democrats said Thursday they would sue the Bush administration, alleging the $39 billion deficit-reducing legislation signed by the president is unconstitutional because the House and Senate failed to approve identical versions.

Rove believes he is in legal jeopardy

RAW Story reports that MSNBC is reporting that Rove may be in for a frog march.

Karl Rove has described his three and a half hour meeting with a grand jury as grueling, and is more worried about being prosecuted than ever, MSNBC is reporting.

RAW STORY has also learned that an MSNBC report tonight will reveal that one of Rove's lawyers said the presidential adviser described his fifth grand jury appearance as "hell." MSNBC's David Shuster is expected to be live on Keith Olbermann's 8pm show this evening, sources say.

[update] video of Schuster's report here.

On Latin American Politics

Foreign Affairs - Latin America's Left Turn

The rest of the world has begun to take note of this left-wing resurgence, with concern and often more than a little hysteria. But understanding the reasons behind these developments requires recognizing that there is not one Latin American left today; there are two. One is modern, open-minded, reformist, and internationalist, and it springs, paradoxically, from the hard-core left of the past. The other, born of the great tradition of Latin American populism, is nationalist, strident, and close-minded. The first is well aware of its past mistakes (as well as those of its erstwhile role models in Cuba and the Soviet Union) and has changed accordingly. The second, unfortunately, has not.

This is an interesting piece that I am glad to see. A lot of articles lump Chile's socialist government and Lula from Brazil in with the likes of Chavez. There are some serious differences in them, and these differences are essential for the nature of the Democracies in these countries. Bachelette and Lula are not the authoritarian nationalists like the populist lefties that have emerged in Venezuela, Boliva, and maybe Peru.

More recently, something funny has happened to both kinds of leftist movements on their way back to power. The communist, socialist, and Castroist left, with a few exceptions, has been able to reconstruct itself, thanks largely to an acknowledgment of its failures and those of its erstwhile models. Meanwhile, the populist left -- with an approach to power that depends on giving away money, a deep attachment to the nationalist fervor of another era, and no real domestic agenda -- has remained true to itself. The latter perseveres in its cult of the past: it waxes nostalgic about the glory days of Peronism, the Mexican Revolution, and, needless to say, Castro. The former, familiar with its own mistakes, defeats, and tragedies, and keenly aware of the failures of the Soviet Union and Cuba, has changed its colors.

When the reformed communist left has reached office in recent years, its economic policies have been remarkably similar to those of its immediate predecessors, and its respect for democracy has proved full-fledged and sincere. Old-school anti-Americanism has been tempered by years of exile, realism, and resignation.

The best examples of the reconstructed, formerly radical left are to be found in Chile, Uruguay, and, to a slightly lesser extent, Brazil. This left emphasizes social policy -- education, antipoverty programs, health care, housing -- but within a more or less orthodox market framework. It usually attempts to deepen and broaden democratic institutions. On occasion, Latin America's age-old vices -- corruption, a penchant for authoritarian rule -- have led it astray. It disagrees with the United States frequently but rarely takes matters to the brink.

In Chile, former President Ricardo Lagos and his successor, Michelle Bachelet, both come from the old Socialist Party (Lagos from its moderate wing, Bachelet from the less temperate faction). Their left-wing party has governed for 16 consecutive years, in a fruitful alliance with the Christian Democrats. This alliance has made Chile a true model for the region. Under its stewardship, the country has enjoyed high rates of economic growth; significant reductions in poverty; equally significant improvements in education, housing, and infrastructure; a slight drop in inequality; a deepening of democracy and the dismantling of Augusto Pinochet's political legacy; a settling of accounts (although not of scores) regarding human rights violations of the past; and, last but not at all least, a strong, mature relationship with the United States, including a free-trade agreement signed by George W. Bush and ratified by the U.S. Congress and Washington's support for the Chilean candidate to head the Organization of American States. U.S.-Chilean ties have continued to prosper despite Chile's unambiguous opposition to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in the UN Security Council in 2003.
...
Overall, this makeover of the radical left is good for Latin America. Given the region's inequality, poverty, still-weak democratic tradition, and unfinished nation building, this left offers precisely what is needed for good governance in the region. If Chile is any example, this left's path is the way out of poverty, authoritarian rule, and, eventually, inequality. This left is also a viable, sensitive, and sensible alternative to the other left -- the one that speaks loudly but carries a very small social stick.

These countries really represent my kind of leftist politics.

For as much as I saw the love for Chavez while I was in Venezuela in 2000 (that is from those outside of the big cities), I didn't know about this:

At the same time, Chávez is driving his country into the ground. A tragicomic symbol of this was the collapse of the highway from Caracas to the Maiquetía airport a few months ago because of lack of maintenance. Venezuela's poverty figures and human development indices have deteriorated since 1999, when Chávez took office. A simple comparison with Mexico -- which has not exactly thrived in recent years -- shows how badly Venezuela is faring. Over the past seven years, Mexico's economy grew by 17.5 percent, while Venezuela's failed to grow at all. From 1997 to 2003, Mexico's per capita GDP rose by 9.5 percent, while Venezuela's shrank by 45 percent. From 1998 to 2005, the Mexican peso lost 16 percent of its value, while the value of the Venezuelan bolivar dropped by 292 percent. Between 1998 and 2004, the number of Mexican households living in extreme poverty decreased by 49 percent, while the number of Venezuelan households in extreme poverty rose by 4.5 percent. In 2005, Mexico's inflation rate was estimated at 3.3 percent, the lowest in years, while Venezuela's was 16 percent.

Although Chávez does very little for the poor of his own country (among whom he remains popular), he is doing much more for other countries: giving oil away to Cuba and other Caribbean states, buying Argentina's debt, allegedly financing political campaigns in Bolivia and Peru and perhaps Mexico. He also frequently picks fights with Fox and Bush and is buying arms from Spain and Russia. This is about as close to traditional Latin American populism as one can get -- and as far from a modern and socially minded left as one can be.

I always assumed that these numbers were better. I'll have to look into it.

Nipeic Tol

Subliminal advertising may work after all

In a second study the researchers made half of their 105 volunteers thirsty by giving them a very salty candy before the task. As predicted, among the thirsty, subliminal messaging had an impact. Eighty per cent of thirsty volunteers who had been exposed to the Lipton Ice message chose that product, compared to only 20 per cent of the controls.

The thirstier volunteers rated themselves to be, the more likely they were to choose Lipton Ice. Those who were not thirsty were only slightly more likely to pick the iced tea (Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2005.12.2005). "Priming only works when the prime is goal-relevant," says Karremans.

The new Rove-ian defense

I am not that stupid! Don't think it will fly.

A Base Story

Finally a corruption story that the "base" can really sink their values into

The Wall Street Journal reports today that admitted briber Mitchell Wade of MZM, Inc. helped procure prostitutes for former Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham (R-CA) -- and possibly for others

Et tu Vermont?

Vermont lawmakers introduce impeachment resolution

Vermont joins the Californian and Illinios legislatures to introduce such a resolution. Although apparently it is not likely to pass in Vermont.

Global warming behind 2005 hurricanes - Apr 25, 2006

Or so say some supposed "experts"

Snow job

Fox host is new Bush spokesman

Personally I think this is great, a simple illustration on how Fox is a mouthpiece for Bush and the republicans. I couldn't be any easier. The jokes should flow easily. He will probably also be a little more entertaining than Scott who was a bit dull, frankly.

Frvade

The hardest enigma on the internet

A Bush Success Story?

Divisions 'could tear UN apart'

The UN's deputy secretary general says member states must renew their commitment to the United Nations or risk tearing it apart.

Do not attack Iran...

Please?

Zbigniew Brzezinski argues that it would not be such a swell idea:

But there are four compelling reasons against a preventive air attack on Iranian nuclear facilities:

1. In the absence of an imminent threat (with the Iranians at least several years away from having a nuclear arsenal), the attack would be a unilateral act of war.

If undertaken without formal Congressional declaration, it would be unconstitutional and merit the impeachment of the President. Similarly, if undertaken without the sanction of the UN Security Council either alone by the United States or in complicity with Israel, it would stamp the perpetrator(s) as an international outlaw(s).

2. Likely Iranian reactions would significantly compound ongoing U.S. difficulties in Iraq and in Afghanistan, perhaps precipitate new violence by Hezbollah in Lebanon, and in all probability cause the United States to become bogged down in regional violence for a decade or more to come. Iran is a country of some 70 million people and a conflict with it would make the misadventure in Iraq look trivial.

3. Oil prices would climb steeply, especially if the Iranians cut their production and seek to disrupt the flow of oil from the nearby Saudi oil fields. The world economy would be severely impacted, with America blamed for it. Note that oil prices have already shot above $70 per barrel, in part because of fears of a U.S./Iran clash.

4. America would become an even more likely target of terrorism, with much of the world concluding that America's support for Israel is itself a major cause of the rise in terrorism. America would become more isolated and thus more vulnerable while prospects for an eventual regional accommodation between Israel and its neighbors would be ever more remote.

It follows that an attack on Iran would be an act of political folly, setting in motion a progressive upheaval in world affairs. With America increasingly the object of widespread hostility, the era of American preponderance could come to a premature end.

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers.

Robert Greenwald's new documentary: Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers.

The easy way out

Bush Eases Environmental Rules on Gasoline

President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refineries to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump. He also halted for the summer the purchase of crude oil for the government's emergency reserve.

Perhaps he heard of economists Verleger's theory that high prices of oil are high due to temporary supply side factors, such as economic regulations, instead of Hubbert peak oil theory or, gee, instability in the middle east and cost gauging by oil companies, perhaps. At least the GOP is 'urging' an investigation into price gouging or illegal manipulation of the oil market. Funny thing, though, it is the same thing the Dems called for a week ago but you have to wait til near the end of the article to find out about it. Anyway, being sekptical, I highly doubt they are sincere. Frankly, I think Bush and a majority of the GOP only apply re-election political theory, and they realized high gas prices are bad for the incumbents. We have to do something about our politics where hard choices are never made because politically they are problematic. Perhaps we need some sort of House of Lords or something, although that would never work in the states. But really, never a call to reduce gas consumption, never incentives to encourage other forms of transportation or whatever. The Dems do have a plan, although you have to look for it. (most information from here)

Bush Impeachment ??

WTF?

The Illinois State Legislature is Preparing to Drop a Bombshell

The Illinois General Assembly is about to rock the nation. Members of state legislatures are normally not considered as having the ability to decide issues with a massive impact to the nation as a whole. Representative Karen A. Yarbrough of Illinois' 7th District is about to shatter that perception forever. Representative Yarbrough stumbled on a little known and never utlitized rule of the US House of Representatives, Section 603 of Jefferson's Manual of the Rules of the United States House of Representatives, which allows federal impeachment proceedings to be initiated by joint resolution of a state legislature. From there, Illinois House Joint Resolution 125 (hereafter to be referred to as HJR0125) was born.

Detailing five specific charges against President Bush including one that is specified to be a felony, the complete text of HJR0125 is copied below at the end of this article. One of the interesting points is that one of the items, the one specified as a felony, that the NSA was directed by the President to spy on American citizens without warrant, is not in dispute. That fact should prove an interesting dilemma for a Republican controlled US House that clearly is not only loathe to initiate impeachment proceedings, but does not even want to thoroughly investigate any of the five items brought up by the Illinois Assembly as high crimes and/or misdemeanors. Should HJR0125 be passed by the Illinois General Assembly, the US House will be forced by House Rules to take up the issue of impeachment as a privileged bill, meaning it will take precedence over other House business.

Apparently the same sort of thing is also happening in California. This is bizzare. If this goes through I really have no idea how that would impact on mid-term elections. As unpopular as Bush is now, I wonder if impeachment would be seen as too punative. It seemed to backfire against Clinton, but then again, Clinton didn't lead the country to war through his lies, he just did what people do all the time on Desparate Housewives.

Email humor making

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are flying on Air Force One

The President looks at the Vice President, chuckles, and says, "You know, I could throw a $1,000 bill out the window right now and make somebody very happy."

The Vice President shrugs and says, "Well, I could throw 10 $100 bills out the window and make 10 people very happy."

Not to be outdone, the Secretary of Defense says, "Of course, then, I could throw 100 $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people very happy."

The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, "Such arrogant asses back there. Hell, I could throw the three of them out the window and make 6 billion people unbelievably happy.

How would a Patriot Act

Glenn Greenwald explains

get the preorder here.

Email humor

George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld are flying on Air Force One.

The President looks at the Vice President, chuckles, and says, 'You know, I could throw a $1,000 bill out the window right now and make somebody very happy.'

The Vice President shrugs and says, 'Well, I could throw 10 $100 bills out the window and make 10 people very happy.'

Not to be outdone, the Secretary of Defense says, 'Of course, then, I could throw 100 $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people very happy.'

The pilot rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, 'Such arrogant asses back there. Hell, I could throw the three of them out the window and make 6 billion people unbelievably happy.'

Another petition

First it was save the whales, now it is save The Internet(s)

Do you buy books online, use Google, or download to an Ipod? These activities will be hurt if Congress passes a radical law that gives giant corporations more control over the Internet.

Internet providers like AT&T and Verizon are lobbying Congress hard to gut Network Neutrality, the Internet's First Amendment. Net Neutrality prevents AT&T from choosing which websites open most easily for you based on which site pays AT&T more. Amazon.com doesn't have to outbid Barnes & Noble for the right to work more properly on your computer.

Politicians don't think we are paying attention to this issue. Many of them take campaign checks from big telecom companies and are on the verge of selling out to people like AT&T's CEO, who openly says, 'The internet can't be free.'

The free and open Internet is under seige--can you sign this petition letting your member of Congress know you support preserving Network Neutrality? Click here

A list of all the ways you might be affected by Net Neutrality is located on the bottom of this link.

Political Wire: Quote of the Day

It's really weird right now. People are worried about their jobs.
- A senior White House official

A spy speaks out

About his craw

When no weapons of mass destruction surfaced in Iraq, President Bush insisted that all those WMD claims before the war were the result of faulty intelligence. But a former top CIA official, Tyler Drumheller — a 26-year veteran of the agency — has decided to do something CIA officials at his level almost never do: Speak out.

He tells correspondent Ed Bradley the real failure was not in the intelligence community but in the White House. He says he saw how the Bush administration, time and again, welcomed intelligence that fit the president's determination to go to war and turned a blind eye to intelligence that did not.

"It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it’s an intelligence failure. It’s an intelligence failure. This was a policy failure," Drumheller tells Bradley.

Drumheller was the CIA's top man in Europe, the head of covert operations there, until he retired a year ago. He says he saw firsthand how the White House promoted intelligence it liked and ignored intelligence it didn’t:

"The idea of going after Iraq was U.S. policy. It was going to happen one way or the other," says Drumheller.

...

"The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

No real surprise here, just another piece o triangulation that confirms my worldview.

Anointed, Not Appointed

George W. Bush's high-handed attitude toward his own majority in Congress keeps getting worse, and we keep waiting for the Republicans to notice they are being insulted.

The latest case in point is President Bush's appointment last week of the next two public trustees for Social Security and Medicare. Normally, those positions require confirmation by the Senate. But leaders from both parties had made it clear they objected to the president's choices. Then the president did an end run, installing his candidates while Congress was in recess.

It's not unheard of for a president to use a recess appointment to overcome stonewalling from his opposition. But in the past, such maneuvers have been treated by the White House as emergencies; this one seems to regard them as nothing unusual.

Keep waiting...

Rally To Stop Genocide

SAVE DARFUR details

If you can't make it then there is a Virtual March over at MoveOn.org

Stirring up Crap

April 24 (Bloomberg) -- To Republicans, the New Hampshire phone-jamming incident is an isolated case of political dirty tricks that took place more than three years ago.

To Democrats, it's a scandal with echoes of Watergate that may reach all the way to the White House.

Republican leaders are facing questions stemming from a criminal case involving efforts to suppress voter turnout in a U.S. Senate election in the state in 2002. Republican John Sununu won that race over Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, helping Republicans retake control of the Senate.

The facts, on the surface at least, are suspicious: dozens of phone calls to the White House by a man later convicted in the case; the national Republican Party agreeing to pay more than $2.5 million in legal bills; phones jammed on Election Day, not only of Democrats but of a firefighters' group, in the first U.S. congressional elections since the Sept. 11 attacks. Democrats say that disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff may even be involved.

``The calls to the White House and the relationship with White House staff are a real eye-opener and should be a cause for concern on all fronts,'' said Sheila Krumholz, acting executive director of the Center for Responsive Politics, a Washington- based research group. ``It calls into question who the person was on the end of that telephone line.''

...

Republicans said the calls to the White House didn't involve discussion of phone-jamming. And they said they only paid the legal bills of James Tobin, 45, who was convicted in December of conspiracy to commit telephone harassment because the Republican National Committee's previous leadership had agreed to do that.

``Democrats are trying to stir up crap,'' said Joe Gaylord, a Republican consultant.

global dimming

This was something new to me: global dimming.

Apparently pollution has significantly dimmed the amount of sun reaching the earth, which has had the effect of cooling the planet, and may be distorting how much the global warming effect is heating the planet.

Let's Bomb Iran

Rumor and innuendo

Or just plain rumor: was Rove downgraded in part to put a little distance between him and the unpopular president just in case he is indicted, which might just happen?

update: Truthout reports that a Grand Jury Hears Evidence Against Rove

Just as the news broke Wednesday about Scott McClellan resigning as White House press secretary and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove shedding some of his policy duties, Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald met with the grand jury hearing evidence in the CIA leak case and introduced additional evidence against Rove, attorneys and other US officials close to the investigation said.

The grand jury session in federal court in Washington, DC, sources close to the case said, was the first time this year that Fitzgerald told the jurors that he would soon present them with a list of criminal charges he intends to file against Rove in hopes of having the grand jury return a multi-count indictment against Rove.

...

Fitzgerald is said to have introduced more evidence Wednesday alleging Rove lied to FBI investigators and the grand jury when he was questioned about how he found out that Valerie Plame Wilson worked for the CIA and whether he shared that information with the media, attorneys close to the case said.

Fitzgerald told the grand jury that Rove lied to investigators and the prosecutor eight out of the nine times he was questioned about the leak and also tried to cover-up his role in disseminating Plame Wilson's CIA status to at least two reporters.

The Contender

As G.W. hits an all-time low of 33% popularity in a Fox poll, and is only has a plurality of popularity in 4 states (Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, and Nebraska), perhaps a nice little schadenfraude discussion is in order. Is G.W. the worst president in the last 100 years? Or can he go all the way and be the worst president in history? Macleans is even keeping the debate going here.

Give them a rope

As rhetoric builds, Democrats in Congress lie low on Iran

Most aides refused to speculate whether Democrats might support a military operation in Iran. Several aides acknowledged, however, that some Democrats in Congress could support a military strike. If it was presented with clear and damning evidence of an Iranian nuclear program, aides said, Bush might be able to get Congressional authorization for the use of force.

Such aides were careful to emphasize that the Bush Administration provided faulty intelligence on Iraq. Any military action Democrats supported, one aide said, would not include the use of nuclear weapons.

That said, most Democrats view any military rhetoric on Iran as a tool to bring the Iranians to the bargaining table.

One aide to a leading Democratic senator disagreed with the contention that Congress would ever support an attack on Iran.

“Even the neocon nuts in the White House know they’d get laughed out of the Senate if they asked for a vote to go to war in Iran,” the aide asserted. “There’s not a single hardline Republican in the Senate who would vote with them after their bad intelligence and botched Iraq war planning.”

Asked about Democratic strategy on Iran, the aide said, “The strategy is simple: Give the Republicans enough rope and they’ll hang themselves.”

I hope they know what they are doing.

On Bushwacking Iran

A couple of interesting pieces on Bush and Iran

Cirincione in Freign Policy: Fool Me Twice

I used to think that the Bush administration wasn’t seriously considering a military strike on Iran, because it would only accelerate Iran’s nuclear program. But what we're seeing and hearing on Iran today seems awfully familiar. That may be because some U.S. officials have already decided they want to hit Iran hard.

and Kaplans: Are we really goingto nuke Iran? Decoding our options

and famous physicists from the US, probably feeling latent Oppenheimer guilt, write letters to the Decider, aka the One Who Decides.

1800 of our fellow physicists have joined in a petition opposing new US nuclear weapons policies that open the door to the use of nuclear weapons in situations such as Iran's. These policies represent a "radical departure from the past", in the words of Linton Brooks, National Nuclear Security Administration director. Indeed, since the end of World War II, US policy has considered nuclear weapons "weapons of last resort", to be used only when the very survival of the nation or of an allied nation was at stake, or at most in cases of extreme military necessity. Instead, the new US nuclear weapons policies have significantly lowered the threshold for the potential use of nuclear weapons, as clearly evidenced by the fact that they are being considered as another tool in the toolbox to destroy underground installations that are "too deep" to be destroyed by conventional weapons. This is a major and dangerous shift in the rationale for nuclear weapons. In the words of the late Joseph Rotblat, Nobel Peace Prize recipient for his efforts to prevent nuclear war, "the danger of this policy can hardly be over-emphasized".

Remaking the Ugly American

Travel tips for Americans abroad

• Think as big as you like but talk and act smaller. (In many countries, any form of boasting is considered very rude. Talking about wealth, power or status - corporate or personal - can create resentment.)
• Listen at least as much as you talk. (By all means, talk about America and your life in our country. But also ask people you're visiting about themselves and their way of life.)
• Save the lectures for your kids. (Whatever your subject of discussion, let it be a discussion not a lecture. Justified or not, the US is seen as imposing its will on the world.)
• Think a little locally. (Try to find a few topics that are important in the local popular culture. Remember, most people in the world have little or no interest in the World Series or the Super Bowl. What we call 'soccer' is football everywhere else. And it's the most popular sport on the planet.)
• Slow down. (We talk fast, eat fast, move fast, live fast. Many cultures do not.)
• Speak lower and slower. (A loud voice is often perceived as bragging. A fast talker can be seen as aggressive and threatening.)
• Your religion is your religion and not necessarily theirs. (Religion is usually considered deeply personal, not a subject for public discussions.)
• If you talk politics, talk - don't argue. (Steer clear of arguments about American politics, even if someone is attacking US politicians or policies. Agree to disagree.)

New blood

Shake-ups in the WH staff. Joshua Bolten's pledge to re-energize the WH has started, but it is more like a recirculation of blood rather than an new infusion. Scott McClellend resigns as press secretary, they might bring in Fox new's Tony Snow. Karl Rove is stepping down from his 'policy coordinate' position to focus a bit more on political matters - as if there was a difference.

In all seriousness, I think the real story here continues to be that things are so bad at the White House, the level of denial and secrets to be kept, the self-bamboozlement and bad-faith so profound, that they just can't manage to bring in any new blood.

Will Rummy go? Joshua Marshall at TMP argues no, and why? Exactly for the same reason that Brian wants Rummy to go:

With Rumsfeld, or any other cabinet secretary, there's a related problem -- the importance of which has, I think, not been fully appreciated or aired. If Rumsfeld goes, you need to nominate someone else and get them through a senate confirmation. That means an open airing of the disaster of this administration's national security policy. Every particular; all about Iraq. Think how much they don't want that ...

Taboo subjects: The Israel lobby

Recently a Harvard and an U. of Chicago professor co-wrote a paper in the London review of books entitled The Isreal Lobby

Their main thesis:

Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.

It is an interesting article if just for the fact that they are discussing a taboo subject in American politics. Salon ran two pieces about it that points out its lamentable shortcommings: Is the "Israel lobby" distorting America's Mideast policies? and a commentary by historian Juan Cole Breaking the silence The overwrought response to John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's brave paper only confirms its thesis.

Also interestingly, the piece was originally commissined by the Atlantic Monthly and rejected, only later to be picked up a rewritten version by the London Review of Books. If you have the time, the expanded essay is on the Harvard website.

Out of Iraq in 2006

John Kerry is organizing a big 10 day push, starting with this petition.

I believe that American combat troops should come home from Iraq in 2006 - not the distant future as President Bush does. Furthermore, I believe we must set a May 15th deadline for the Iraqis to form an effective unity government. And, if the Iraqi politicians choose to ignore that deadline, then I believe things will only get worse and we will have no choice but to withdraw immediately.

We want democracy in Iraq, but itÂ’s now the job of Iraqis to build it. Our troops have performed gallantly and heroically. The best way to keep faith with them is to set deadlines for bringing our troops home and getting Iraq on its own two feet. ThatÂ’s the only way to give their sacrifice its best chance of resulting in success.

Apparently, over the next 10 days there will be more things going on. This is combined with a push to can Rumsfeld. While I don't think Rumsfeld will ever be fired by this guy, keeping it in the news is a good thing.

'nü-klE-&r

Greenpeace founder goes nuclear

In the early 1970s when I helped found Greenpeace, I believed that nuclear energy was synonymous with nuclear holocaust, as did most of my compatriots. That's the conviction that inspired Greenpeace's first voyage up the spectacular rocky northwest coast to protest the testing of U.S. hydrogen bombs in Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Thirty years on, my views have changed, and the rest of the environmental movement needs to update its views, too, because nuclear energy may just be the energy source that can save our planet from another possible disaster: catastrophic climate change.
...
Here's why: Wind and solar power have their place, but because they are intermittent and unpredictable they simply can't replace big baseload plants such as coal, nuclear and hydroelectric. Natural gas, a fossil fuel, is too expensive already, and its price is too volatile to risk building big baseload plants. Given that hydroelectric resources are built pretty much to capacity, nuclear is, by elimination, the only viable substitute for coal. It's that simple.

For me I am going to save cognition and use my trustability detectors to suss out where to go on this issue. I believe he has good intentions (works for Greenpeace), he is probably highly competent (was founder of highly successful NGO), and is probably not saying falsehoods (publishing in a credible paper... Well, ok, 2 out of 3) - and since I don't have time to check all the facts ... Ok. I'll bite.

and as he says:

Imagine if the ratio of coal to nuclear were reversed so that only 20 percent of our electricity was generated from coal and 60 percent from nuclear. This would go a long way toward cleaning the air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Every responsible environmentalist environmentalism conservativist with a gun and parents with kids should support a move in that direction.

New bedfellows

Environmental Conservationists = Enivronmentalists + outdoor sportsmen/hunters + sane people who want to have a world for their children

It is time to drop the term 'environmentalists' altogether and rename a the Emerging Environmental Majority environmental conservationists.

Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign Redux

Desert Rats Leave The Sinking Ship
Why Rumsfeld Should Not Resign

Greg Palast argues that the generals should not be criticising Rumsfeld, they should be aiming for who is really in charge, el presidente.

But insofar as Rumsfeld should not resign? This argument is a non-sequitor. Just becuase they all should resign out of consideration of my sensibilities doesn't mean that only the head honcho gets the boot. After writing that perhaps Rumsfeld could be used as a rhetorical anchor for the Bush government, Brian responded that the Dems need to take someone down, put fear into them and that the confirmation hearings are a good time to humiliate the administration. I think he is right - and leads me to the conclusion that actually getting Rumsfeld fired would be a hell of a task this year, especially considering that it would be embarassing for the Repubs during an election year. But maybe the chance is now to use these generals as a stepping stone for more debate on incompetence, the debate that we might be able to push during a confirmation hearing.... anyway, enough rambling.

Out of sight out of mind

Where computers go to die -- and kill

This isn't some robotic fantasy movie line. Instead it is more depressing:

More than 50 percent of our recycled computers are shipped overseas, where their toxic components are polluting poor communities. Meanwhile, U.S. laws are a mess, and industry and Congress are resisting efforts to stem 'the effluent of the affluent.

Something us computer oriented people should keep in mind if we would like to strive to live a bit more harmoniously with the world. The BAN documentaries can be found here.

Off to Pucon for the weekend

Have a happy easter weekend.

and chuckle at Berlusconi's defeat :)

the man just doesn't know when to say uncle.

Bush's band of war-happy simpletons

From grownups to a band of war-happy simpletons

Are the Bushies totally insensate? Or are they simply stupid?

Enquiring minds, you know...

So, this is the line I would like to hear more often. This is, well at least for me, a convincing argument. The Bushies are nuts, they don't consider the consequences, we can't trust them, and we want to let them start another war?

All that said, I reconsidered my latest post saying not to fire Rumsfeld. If Rumsfeld leaving means an improved approach to Iraq, then I am all for it. But again, I don't see anyone but an even more sycophantic person installed instead, so...

The authors conclusion?

They should never again be allowed anywhere near the instruments and agencies of the American government.

(link from here)

Fire Rumsfeld? Not so fast.

Unless the bring in someone who is out of principle anti-war in Iran, and willing to stand up to Bush, which they won't, I'm not so sure that they should. Granted, Rumsfeld is a disaster. And I am not old enough to remember, but how often do 5 or 6 (and still counting) of the generals who have worked under a secretary of defense retire and then express their desire to see him run out of Washington, calling him flattering euphamisms like an "absolute failure"? If it was an odd year, I would love to get Rumsfeld out of there. Bring in someone with competence (like Bush would do that). But as it is 2006, the polls are in the gutter, I am still convinced that Bush wants to attack Iran, as friggin crazy as it seems. So why would I want to keep Rumsfeld in there? Exactly because he is incompetent. One of the most powerful arguments against attacking Iran that I think Democrats can use is something along the line of, "do you trust Bush to take us into yet another war"? I think with the albatros of an incompetent Reumsfeld, the Dems can constantly aruge that they are still incompetent and see how they are unwilling to change? Why would we expect these new plans to be any better? Why should we trust them if they don't trust or have the trust of our military leaders?

Canoa Beach, Ecuador

New Deal Coalition

As I wrote once before, I think the Democrats have played the immigration issue like a fiddle, and that this is potentially a political winner for them, but what the heck do I know? Nice to see someone agrees with me

Democrats are at last beginning to grasp that by representing a multi-ethnic, multilingual coalition of hard working strivers for the fruits of the American Dream they can recreate a Newer Deal coalition that will grant them political power for a generation. Some Democrats will come back from recess eager to put themselves in front of the crowds that have already formed. They will not be willing to cut the bad deals that the Republicans will want. The ship of state will be in irons, as the sailors say, because the White House will be focused on Iran bombing plans and the Libby trial; besides, the White House's base won't welcome the Democratic push for worker's rights and family values -- which is what the immigration cause can fairly be described as being. Senator Kennedy himself will find the roar of the crowd overcomes the impulse to wheel and deal in the cloakroom.

Academic alphabetic tyranny

Academic alphabetic tyranny

Faculty members in top departments with surnames beginning with letters earlier in the alphabet are substantially more likely to be tenured, be fellows of the Econometrics Society, and even win Nobel prizes (let's see, Arrow, Buchanan Coase...hmmm). No such effects are found in psychology where the alphabetical norm is not followed.

Bummer for authors named Smith. I agree. Name randomization would be best.

test

WTF?

Data Leaks Persist From Afghan Base
A computer drive sold at a bazaar for $40 may hold the names of spies for the United States who inform on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

With so many leaks everywhere, one might think we were a sinking ship.