The pause that refreshes

Well, hopefully. The move is on Saturday and after this posting I'm going to pack up the gizmo and so be computerless for a couple of days. There won't be anything else from me until the beginning of the week.

This is my fourth move in the past three years and not one of them has been undertaken as the result of genuine desire; all have been impelled by one cause or another: employment, family reasons, whatever. I'm tired of it and I really really hope this is the last move for at least a few years - even though I know that circumstances may impel yet another move as soon as next spring. But perhaps the new changes will work out as hoped and we can settle in for a time. We'll just have to see.

My intent is that once we get a little unpacked in the new place I'll be able to get back to more regular blogging here; what with packing and all I've had little enough time and to be honest not a lot of inclination to work on posts. But I decided that I wasn't ready to let it go when I was getting furious reading some other blogs in the wake of the wonderful, massive outpouring of bold antiwar sentiment on Saturday only to find a number of them still - still! - bemoaning and grousing about the involvement of ANSWER in the organizing of it! And I kept thinking "My God - have we learned nothing in the last 50 flaming years?"

To get the rest of the rant that will, yes it will, make the connection there, plus some thoughts on what "Support the Troops!" means, check back the beginning of next week. In the meantime, enjoy the dancing vision of Tom DeLay, Bill Frist, and Karl Rove all under indictment simultaneously and take pleasure in one small victory in the struggle before your soul is frozen by the reality of Chief Justice John Roberts.

Footnote: The John Roberts Honor Roll, numbering 22, all Democrats: Akaka (HI), Bayh (IN), Biden (DE), Boxer (CA), Cantwell (WA), Clinton (NY), Corzine (NJ), Dayton (MN), Durbin (IL), Feinstein (CA), Harkin (IA), Inouye (HI), Kennedy (MA), Kerry (MA), Lautenberg (NJ), Mikulski (MD), Obama (IL), Reed (RI), Reid (NV), Sarbanes (MD), Schumer (NY), Stabenow (MI).

States with a clean conscience: California, Hawai'i, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York.

States with a troubled conscience: Delaware, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Rhode Island, and Washington.

States with no conscience: The rest.

Biggest Ass-Licker, measured by how far it was necessary to bend over to perform the act: Russ Feingold (D-WI).

Just to let you know I'm not dead

As I warned three weeks ago, posting here has been very spotty because of some unexpected changes which include working more hours (good) and an impelled move to be closer to work (bad).

But just to let you know that I'm not quite dead and I haven't packed it in - although the thought has crossed my mind - I thought I'd drop by to offer my growing list of Right Wing Debate Tactics. Feel free to add your own. In fact, I'd welcome proposed additions. (I of course am the sole judge of whether or not they make the list. It is, after all, my list.)

Tactic #1: Deny, deny, deny!

Tactic #2: Spin, spin, spin!

Tactic #3: When facts are undeniable, change the subject, preferably by applying Tactic #4 and/or Tactic #5.

Tactic #4: Issue a lengthy, ranting denunciation of "the left" of the form "What about..." something somehow vaguely comparable to that of which you're accused, being sure to include the words "hypocrites" and/or "hypocrisy," thereby arguing that the left can't legitimately criticize the right - while by the very act of using this tactic insisting that the right can continue to criticize the left. Where possible, include the phrase "you liberals."

Tactic #5: Express "shock" and "outrage" at the "uncivil" and "rude" language or behavior of opponents; if pressed on your own language or behavior, you have a menu of five options, which can be used singly or in combination: a) accuse "the left" of censorship, b) pass it off as a "joke" and bemoan the "angry, humorless" left, c) denounce "political correctness," d) say "they did if first" even if they didn't, or e) when really trapped, declare you "regret if anyone was offended" - which doesn't actually admit it was offensive.

Tactic #6: Make the particular stand for the whole. That is, find something offensive or silly some liberal or leftist somewhere sometime said or did and declare it as identifying the entire left half of the American political spectrum. Where possible, demand your opponents "prove" they do not agree with whatever it is by spending their time attacking the author of the cited particular instead of you.

Tactic #7: It's the fault of the "liberal media." (Losing effectiveness due to overuse, but still potent when carefully applied.)

Tactic #8: It's all Bill Clinton's fault. (Of decreasing utility, but still handy.)

Full court press

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has been called the worst court in the country for protection of human rights. That reputation seems well-deserved: It's hard to imagine a more outrageous, unjust, just mind-warpingly awful and awfully dangerous decision than that reported by the Washington Post on Sunday.

A federal appeals court yesterday backed the president's power to indefinitely detain a U.S. citizen captured on U.S. soil without any criminal charges, holding that such authority is vital during wartime to protect the nation from terrorist attacks.

The ruling, by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, came in the case of Jose Padilla, a former gang member and U.S. citizen arrested in Chicago in 2002 and a month later designated an "enemy combatant" by President Bush. ...

A congressional resolution passed after Sept. 11 "provided the President all powers necessary and appropriate to protect American citizens from terrorist attacks," the decision said. "Those powers include the power to detain identified and committed enemies such as Padilla, who associated with al Qaeda ... who took up arms against this Nation in its war against these enemies, and who entered the United States for the avowed purpose of further prosecuting that war by attacking American citizens."

That is, in its "decision" - which I put in quotes because the word implies some actual consideration was given to alternatives, which I say did not happen here - the court declared that presidents can, on their own authority, with no need for evidence or proof, imprison US citizens without charge indefinitely and then justified that fascist - and I do not, I never, use that word lightly - insanity by mindlessly parroting the very White House claims for which the Shrub team says proof is not required.

Oh, but no, I'm too harsh, I overstate! The power to toss someone into a prison for the rest of their lives without even having to bother filing a charge is not unlimited, oh no.

The ruling limits the president's power to detain Padilla to the duration of hostilities against al Qaeda,

"hostilities" which the Shrub gang says may go on for "generations."

Which means I'm being unfair, aren't I? I mean, the power isn't, well, eternal, is it? It's just for generations. And after all, the only thing required to put an end to this power of imprisonment-by-fiat is for the president to declare that the War on Terror^{(c)(reg.)(pat.pend.)} has been won and terrorism has disappeared from the Earth. It's only until then that presidents are free to ignore the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

So, the court tells us, for the sake of "security," anyone the Executive Branch views as an "enemy" can be imprisoned at any time, for any length of time, without charge, without recourse, a power that continues until some future president, "generations" from now, voluntarily relinquishes it - if they ever do.

Avidan Cover, a senior associate at Human Rights First, said the ruling "really flies in the face of our understanding of what rights American citizens are entitled to."

Cover is too freaking polite. What this is, is a thorough-going travesty that, if upheld, will overturn the foundations of our justice system by equating accusation with indictment, trail, and conviction and threaten the very basis of our republic by imperiling all forms of dissent. (Antiwar protestors are already accused of "encouraging our enemies." How far a leap is it from there to "supporting" and then to "being" "enemies?") The judges who agreed to this decision are a disgrace to their robes and a disgrace to justice.

Footnote: Erich Fromm had some relevant thoughts.

Jeopardy!

Jeopardy! for Monday, August 29
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is San Francisco?

JEOPARDY!
How...? for $200

For the Pacific, 36,201 feet.

==

Jeopardy! for Tuesday, August 30
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
How deep is the ocean?

JEOPARDY!
How...? for $600

Get at least 270 votes in the electoral college.

==

Jeopardy! for Wednesday, August 31
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
How do you become president of the United States? (Acceptable: vice president)

JEOPARDY!
How...? for $1000

Mrs. Browning said to find this out she had to "count the ways."

==

Jeopardy! for Thursday, September 1
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
How do I love thee?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
Comic Book to Screen for $400

Fans marveled as Hugh Jackman nailed (or should we say clawed) this hero in X-Men and X-2.

==

Jeopardy! for Friday, September 2
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
Who is Wolverine?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
Comic Book to Screen for $1200

In Daredevil, Ben Affleck was the title character and she was the feisty Elektra.

==

Jeopardy! for Saturday, September 3
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
Who is Jennifer Garner?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
Comic Book to Screen for $2000

Shaq smashed as Steel and this actor slashed as Blade.

TOMORROW'S FINAL JEOPARDY! CATEGORY
Biblical Names

==

Jeopardy! for Sunday, September 4
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
Who is Wesley Snipes?

FINAL JEOPARDY!
Biblical Names

The term "Semite" is derived from this brother of Shem.

==

Jeopardy! for Monday, September 5
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
Who is Shem?

JEOPARDY!
On the Job for $200

"If I were" one of these woodworkers, I could build you shelves, put up molding, etc.

==

Jeopardy! for Tuesday, September 6
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is a carpenter?

JEOPARDY!
On the Job for $600

In job titles it follows mechanical, chemical, and civil.

==

Jeopardy! for Wednesday, September 7
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is engineer(ing)?

JEOPARDY!
On the Job for $1000

From the Latin for "doorkeeper," it's the common term for the general custodian of a building.

Better than none?

I needed some good news after that, but only got halfway. Still, half a loaf and all that....

From AP for Wednesday:

Sacramento, Calif. - Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced Wednesday he will veto a bill that would have made California the first state to legalize same-sex marriage through its elected lawmakers.

Schwarzenegger said the legislation, given final approval Tuesday by lawmakers, would conflict with the intent of voters when they approved an initiative five years ago.

The veto is not a surprise; Arnie had said previously he would try to kill it. Still, even if the veto can't be overriden, the legislature did pass it, the first time that's happened, so we are not completely breadless. It may be small progress, but it is progress.

In a nice bit of snark, Kate Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights

said she was not surprised by word of Schwarzenegger's pending veto.

"Any girlie man could have vetoed this legislation," she said.... "A real man demonstrating real leadership as governor of the most populous state in the nation would have chosen a different course of action."

And in a moment of high if unintentional humor, the Gropinator said he'd veto the bill because the debate over same-sex marriage should be decided by voters or the courts.

Hey, Arnie, check your script: The courts are exactly where you're supposed to say it shouldn't be decided.

Footnote to the preceding

A few days ago I came across a post that said that a charity called "Operation Blessing," a faith-based outfit founded by one Marion Gordon Robertson, was second on FEMA's list of organizations accepting donations for hurricane disaster relief, right behind the American Red Cross.

Marion Gordon Robertson, who still sits on the Board of Directors of the FEMA-favored Operation Blessing along with his wife and son, is better known as, yes, indeed, Pat Robertson.

The FEMA website in question no longer has any such listing and inquiring about "making a donation" sends you to the safely nonpartisan USA Freedom Corps site, but I want to note that I saw the site before it was changed and can confirm that indeed, Pat Robertson's outfit was second on the list, turning a disaster into an opportunity to advance the rightwing agenda. Black souls, indeed.

I never sang for my father

The boy's got a voice
But the voice is his natural disguise
Yes the boy's got a voice
But the words don't connect to his eyes
He says "Ah, but when I sing
I can hear the truth auditioning"
The boy's got a voice
But the voice is his natural -
["Oh, Marion," by Paul Simon]

The first thing to know is that I love to sing. I do. But few people have ever heard me do it, even though people tell me I do it rather well. Even some long-time friends, now drifted away over the years, heard me rarely if at all. I just shy away from singing in public.

It's not stage fright, lordy no. I've been known to rattle a few windows in the course of giving a speech and I was always willing to be the one to appear on some TV segment or another at places where I worked. No, it's not that.

It's more that I'm uncomfortable with displaying emotion publicly. Intellectual passion, yes - which I why the window-rattling I mentioned was not a problem - but emotion, what moves the heart rather than the conscience, no. "But when I sing, I can hear the truth auditioning" - or, as I put it to someone once, singing is the closest this particular atheist gets to praying. When I sing, my heart is on the line and I know that those with eyes to see may see more than I would care to show.

So I'm uncomfortable singing in public. But now I wish I could stand in the street and sing out, sing to any and all passing strangers, sing a song for Katrina. Because I can't find way to express it in words.

I have been trying for over a week to write something about Katrina. But every time I try to write, I'm stymied not only by the magnitude of the event but even more by the fact that every time I start, I come across some new outrage, some new fact or revelation that points out in ever-sharper relief the devastation, the pain - the appallingly unnecessary pain - the loss, the murderous indifference of those who were warned, who were told in so many words that this could happen but who ignored it because, why, because it wasn't politically useful? Because the people at risk were poor and black and so no one cared?

It certainly wasn't because of the cost: The Army Corps of Engineers had requested $27 million for the current fiscal year to pay for hurricane-protection projects around Lake Pontchartrain. The doesn't seem like a large amount for a government that is blasting away at Iraq and Iraqis to the tune of $6 billion a month, especially when

[b]efore 9/11 the Federal Emergency Management Agency listed the three most likely catastrophic disasters facing America: a terrorist attack on New York, a major earthquake in San Francisco and a hurricane strike on New Orleans. "The New Orleans hurricane scenario," The Houston Chronicle wrote in December 2001, "may be the deadliest of all."

Even so, precisely because of war costs, the corps got only $5.7 million - and that was nearly 50% more than the Shrub team wanted to give them. The result was

the corps delayed seven contracts that included enlarging the levees, according to corps documents.

And that was after a year during which a

New Orleans Times-Picayune article noted: "For the first time in 37 years, federal budget cuts have all but stopped major work on the New Orleans area's east bank hurricane levees." The article quoted the manager of the Army Corps of Engineers' Lake Pontchartrain levee project saying that "people should know that this is a work in progress, and there's more important work yet to do before there is a complete system in place."

They knew, they knew, they knew that the hurricane protection around New Orleans was inadequate. They knew for years. They knew New Orleans was a disaster waiting to happen.

[E]ngineers say the levees preventing this below-sea-level city from being turned into a swamp were built to withstand only Category 3 hurricanes. And officials have warned for years that a Category 4 could cause the levees to fail. ...

"We certainly understood the potential impact of a Category 4 or 5 hurricane" on New Orleans, Lt. General Carl Strock, chief of engineers for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, said Thursday, Cox News Service reported.

Reuters reported that in 2004, more than 40 state, local and volunteer organizations practiced a scenario in which a massive hurricane struck and levees were breached, allowing water to flood New Orleans. Under the simulation, called "Hurricane Pam," the officials "had to deal with an imaginary storm that destroyed more than half a million buildings in New Orleans and forced the evacuation of a million residents," the Reuters report said. ...

[O]n Sunday[, the day before Katrina hit,] Placquemines Parish Sheriff Jeff Hingle referred back to Hurricane Betsy - a Category 2 hurricane that struck in 1965 - and said, "After Betsy these levees were designed for a Category 3."

He added, "These levees will not hold the water back."

And then they, despite knowing, despite have studied the possibility, watched and did nothing as a Category 5 hurricane headed for the city. (Katrina weakened to a Category 4 before making landfall.)

And let me be clear here: The "they" in question are Homeland Security and FEMA. State and local officials could perhaps have done more or done sooner but they knew going in they had no chance, that they were going to be overwhelmed.

City, state and federal emergency officials[, reported the July 24 New Orleans Times Picayune,] are preparing to give the poorest of New Orleans' poor a historically blunt message: In the event of a major hurricane, you're on your own." ...

In an interview at the opening of this year's hurricane season, New Orleans Emergency Preparedness Director Joseph Matthews acknowledged that the city is overmatched.

"It's important to emphasize that we just don't have the resources to take everybody out," he said in a interview in late May.

An estimated 134,000 people were without transportation to evacuate the city and the officials openly admitted they simply did not have the ability to get them out. And they asked for help. Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco declared a state of emergency on August 26 and made a formal request for federal aid on August 28, the day before the storm hit. The outrageous White House lie that everything bad that happened was because she supposedly was sluggish in asking for federal help is easily derailed: The state government's website has a copy of the letter at this link in .pdf format. (In fact, it was so outrageous that the Washington Post, which reported the assertion from an unnamed "senior White House official," had to issue a correction within a few hours.)

Oh yes, the lies. The lies. The lies while people drowned. The lies while people went without food and water for days. The lies while people sweltered, suffered, begged, waited, while they suffered and begged some more, while they moved the stinking corpses into stairwells at the convention center or left them on the street because there was nowhere to put them, while the smell, the stench, the sickness, the strain, the violence climbed around them. Oh, the lies.

The feds whined that they couldn't get into the city, couldn't get there to get people out or supplies in, even as TV news crews with their trucks got to and from the Superdome and convention center. As late as Thursday, Department of the Security of the Fatherland Secretary Michael Chertoff dismissed as "rumor" the suffering at the convention center while claiming "we are getting food and water to areas where people are staging." As late as Friday, FEMA director Michael Brown was saying that they learned about the desperate conditions at the convention center just the day before - and that though broadcast news reports. And he was still denying reports of uncollected corpses and violence! Even worse, he declared that "We've provided food to the people at the Convention Center so that they've gotten at least one, if not two meals, every single day."

"Lies," the Times-Picayune replied, "don't get more bald-faced than that."

And security? No problem, Brown claimed with a straight face.

I actually think the security is pretty darn good. There's some really bad people out there that are causing some problems, and it seems to me that every time a bad person wants to scream of cause a problem, there's somebody there with a camera to stick it in their face.

That is, we're just a terrific agency doing a terrific job and everything is terrific and anything you think to the contrary is all the media's fault.

Bush, of course, had to get in on the act; he couldn't let his aides have all the fun of making up crap. So he told "Good Morning America" in an interview Thursday that "I don't think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees." Just like no one anticipated airliners being used as weapons. That was such a whopper that it was being spun by the next day, when Brown was claiming the real thing that nobody anticipated was that the breaks would be so big and cause "such widespread devastation" - this, again, even though an exercise run just a little over a year before ("Hurricane Pam") was about exactly that prospect.

And since Brown appears to get his information from news reports rather than his own agency, maybe he saw this from AP from last May:

Officials have warned that if a major hurricane hits New Orleans, thousands of people could be killed and the city could be flooded for weeks as flood waters breach the levees ringing the city, which has the topography of a saucer that dips several feet below sea level in many places.

Lies. All lies. Or let me be clear: I hope they are lies, I hope they are just efforts at CYA and damage control to cover up their incompetence. Because if they aren't, they reflect stupidity and an indifference to human life to a degree that is truly frightening. I cling to the hope of simple lies. But it's a hope hard to maintain.

Because they knew what was coming. They had to know. Or are we really supposed to believe Chertoff when he claimed that it wasn't until just a day before landfall that they knew it was a Category 4 storm heading for New Orleans when the National Hurricane Center had predicted exactly that as early as the Friday before? What should I hope for? That they were simply that incompetent and now are just too chicken to admit how massively, ruinously, they screwed up? What's the alternative, that they simply didn't care if thousands died and acted only when the political fallout looked unpleasant? What does it say about their performance when you have to hope for incompetence and lies as a preferable explanation?

Did they care? Did they care at all? I mean about the people, not the politics. If you think they did, how could you tell? What sign could you use? Who in the administration showed a flicker of concern? Shrub, sharing a birthday cake with John McCain? Defense Secretary Donald Rumplestiltskin going to a baseball game? Secretary of State Can'tbe Right - who, when asked about accusations that the government responded slowly because many of the victims were black, said "How can that be the case?" - doing her Imelda Marcos imitation? Who?

FEMA, supposed to be the boots on the ground, sat on its collective ass for days even though Bush had issued a declaration of an emergency that gave it the authority to act. Then when it did move, it made things worse.

For one thing, it all but ignored an offer of large-scale relief assistance from the city of Chicago: Mayor Richard Daley offered to send more than 400 police, fire, and medical personnel along with dozens of trucks and two boats - and they would bring their own food, water, and supplies. FEMA accepted one truck. Period.

Daley wasn't the only generous donor to be rebuffed. Throughout last week, various local and state governments, corporations and nonprofit organizations across the nation attempted to help in the relief effort, only to be snubbed by federal officials.... [T]he Department of Homeland Security barred the American Red Cross from entering New Orleans with food. Five hundred Floridian airboaters were ready to rescue people stranded in inundated homes, but FEMA turned them down. Twenty sheriff's deputies from Loudoun County, Va., suffered a similar fate.

And if you haven't seen the video of Jefferson parish president Aaron Broussard's appearance on Meet the Press, follow the link and do it now. If it doesn't break your heart, you don't have one.

We have been abandoned by our own country. Hurricane Katrina will go down in history as one of the worst storms ever to hit an American coast. But the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina will go down as one of the worst abandonments of Americans on American soil ever in U.S. history. ... Bureaucracy has committed murder here in the greater New Orleans area and bureaucracy has to stand trial before Congress now. ...

We had Wal-Mart deliver three trucks of water. FEMA turned them back. They said we didn't need them. This was a week ago. FEMA, we had 1,000 gallons of diesel fuel on a Coast Guard vessel docked in my parish. When we got there with our trucks, FEMA says don't give you the fuel. Yesterday - yesterday - FEMA comes in and cuts all of our emergency communication lines. They cut them without notice. Our sheriff, Harry Lee, goes back in, he reconnects the line. He posts armed guards and said no one is getting near these lines.

The only thing FEMA did well, it seems, was PR: Last Thursday, the New York Times carried a puff piece that had to be little more than a re-written FEMA press release on how all the great ways the agency supposedly has been improved "since 2001 to better prepare the nation for a possible terrorist attack was helping in this catastrophe as well," an article that sloshed together a bunch of numbers of this many thises and that many thats as if how many "logistics centers" the outfit has is the proper measure of success instead of how much materiel and personnel it could put on the ground in how short a time.

"This is an exam for everything we have done since 9/11," said James Jay Carafano, an expert on domestic security and a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative research organization.

It was, indeed - and FEMA, Security of the Fatherland, and all of the rest right up to the Shrub-in-Chief himself failed miserably.

Did they know? Did they care? Billmon at The Whiskey Bar took a look at how FEMA responded to Hurricanes Charley, Frances and Ivan last year as they triple-whammied Florida. Then, the agency was oh so organized and really Johnny-on-the-spot, even to the point of having pre-positioned relief supplies.

FEMA officials must have been deeply gratified to see the effect their heroic efforts had in the place where they were most desperately needed - Bush's poll numbers [in Florida as the election approached]. ...

[W]hen the chips are down, and the need is absolutely dire, this administration can still deliver the kind of coordinated emergency response that once made the U.S. government the envy of the world - just as it cooly and capably protected the Iraqi Oil Ministry from the chaos and looting that trashed every other government office in post-invasion Baghdad. As is usually the case in public service, it's just a matter of having the right incentives. ...

[S]ince I'm lucky enough to live in a swing state that is also coveted by GOP political strategists, I probably don't have to worry ... that is, as long as any future disasters around my neck of the woods happen in one of those years divisible by two.

Oh, but there I go again, being political. Intellectualizing. Dealing in anger and conscience rather than gut reaction. Because, once again, the gut reaction stays inside. The tears do not come except to be quickly suppressed. As the sewage- and lead-contaminated floodwaters of New Orleans are pushed and pumped out so achingly slowly, as the next shock looms, a shock of the thousands of rotting, bloated bodies expected to be revealed as the water level drops, as some officials are saying that the city "has completely been destroyed" and some voices have even raised the possibility of not rebuilding the city at all, of just abandoning it entirely, and as the gross, foul, disgusting, inhuman, self-serving lies of those who could have done more, who could have done better, who could have acted, who knew, who knew but who just didn't care, as their lies mount a stink greater than the fetid fumes of death that reek in the streets of New Orleans but who now want to cover their tracks by preventing media from photographing the recovery of the dead, hoping such a blackout of coverage will conceal the blackness in their souls.... As it all goes on, I just - I just wish I could sing.

Footnote: HurricaneHousing.org, a project of MoveOn, has a website for people can offer a bed for someone evacuating from New Orleans. As of tonight, they have offers of nearly 208,000 beds. Go here to offer accommodations or if you need, or someone you can refer needs, a place.

Poll-axed

Apparently blanching at the thought of being labeled "weak on security" or "defeatist," Dummycrats are scurrying around, looking for ways to criticize Shrub's "lack of leadership" on Iraq and the conduct of the war - without actually proposing any alternatives. This, they seem to think, is smart politics, as the Washington Post reported last week.

"Credit the Democrats for not trying to pour more gasoline on the fire, even if they're not particularly unified in their message," said Michael McCurry, a former Clinton White House press secretary. "Democrats could jump all over them and try to pin Bush down on it, but I'm not sure it would do anything but make things worse. The smartest thing for Democrats to do is be supportive."

And some argue that Democrats do not need to craft an alternative policy, deeming it better simply to let Bush struggle.

To the extent they have offered an alternative policy, it's been one of declaring Bush a wimp, as the Boston Globe noted earlier last month.

Even Democrats who have been associated with liberal positions on international affairs are calling for more troops in uniform, proposing that threats of force be used to stop nuclear weapons programs in Iran and North Korea, and pressing for potential military intervention to ease famine and oppression around the world.

The emerging message among Democrats reflects a recognition that winning congressional and presidential elections in the post-Sept. 11 era requires candidates to establish a willingness to use America's military might and keep the nation safe, according to party leaders and strategists.

Note here that not a single reference is being made to what's a good policy or what's right or wrong, what's actually helpful or damaging to any concept of justice; no, it's all about - overtly about - what wins elections, what's "smart."

And people say the Dims have no core values. I bet they're embarrassed now!

On the other hand, is this "smart politics?" Because of a request for information from an acquaintance, just the other day I was looking at some recent polls, which, taken together, indicate that Americans are increasingly distressed about the war in Iraq, even though they haven't yet come to a clear conclusion as to what to do about it. However, while the "stay the course" 'cause "you break it, you bought it" mentality being embraced by what passes for liberal Democrats these days (e.g., Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry - although he at least can say that he was saying it a year ago) has something of a following, it's not nearly as strong as the Dums seem to think (or want to claim). "Beyond the beltway" is more ticked off about the war than the cowardly politicos of our non-opposition party seem to realize - or want to hear.

For one thing, people consistently say, in one way or another, that it would have been better if the war had never happened:

CBS News poll, August 29-31
- Looking back, do you think the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, or should the U.S. have stayed out? Should have stayed out, 49% - 45%

CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll, August 28-30
- In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not? Mistake, 54% - 46%

ABC News/Washington Post poll, August 25-28
- All in all, considering the costs to the United States versus the benefits to the United States, do you think the war with Iraq was worth fighting, or not? Not Worth Fighting, 53% - 46%

Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs, August 22-24
- All in all, thinking about how things have gone in Iraq since the United States went to war there in March 2003, do you think the United States made the right decision in going to war in Iraq or made a mistake in going to war in Iraq? Mistake, 53% - 43%

What's more, they're not happy with the results so far:

CBS News poll
- Do you think the result of the war with Iraq was worth the loss of American life and other costs of attacking Iraq, or not? Not worth it, 61% - 33%

- As a result of U.S. military action against Iraq, do you think the threat of terrorism against the United States has increased, decreased, or stayed about the same? Increased, 40%; Decreased, 16%, Stayed the same, 42%

ABC/Washington Post poll
- Again thinking about the goals versus the costs of the war, so far in your opinion has there been an acceptable or unacceptable number of U.S. military casualties in Iraq? Unacceptable, 68% - 30%

- Do you think the United States is or is not making significant progress toward restoring civil order in Iraq? Is not, 50% - 48%

AP/Ipsos poll
- Has the military action in Iraq increased the threat of terrorism around the world, decreased the threat of terrorism around the world, or had no effect on the threat of terrorism? Increased, 50%; Decreased, 20%; No effect, 28%

The Harris Poll. August 9-16
- Do you think the invasion of Iraq strengthened or weakened the war on terrorism? Weakened, 48% - 44%

- Do you think the invasion of Iraq has helped to protect the United States from another terrorist attack or not? Has not, 58% - 38%

- Do you think the invasion of Iraq, and recent events in Iraq, have made the United States much more respected, somewhat more respected, somewhat less respected, or much less respected around the world? More respected, 27%; Less respected, 68% [Results not further broken down]

When the question becomes where to go from here, opinions become muddier and dissatisfaction turns into some combination of determination, fatalism, and fury. When the AP/Ipsos poll gave people the stark choice of keeping troops in Iraq "until the situation has stabilized" versus bringing them home "immediately," people went for the former by a margin of 60% - 37%. When the ABC/Washington Post poll asked essentially the same question without the word "immediately," sticking it out still was preferred by 54% - 44%. And when that same poll asked if the US should set a deadline for withdrawal (in a question which said "others say" that setting a deadline "would only encourage the anti-government insurgents"), by a margin of 59% - 39% respondents said no.

However, as is often true, a lot seems to depend on how the question is phrased. Harris asked about withdrawing but without characterizing the responses or by suggesting that certain answers were endorsements of certain arguments. The question was "Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?" In that case, "bring them home" was the big winner; the margin was 61% - 36%.

What all this adds up to, it seems to me, is that Americans want things to work out for Iraqis, hope things work out, and feel an obligation to help, but want our government to be working on ways to extricate ourselves. While they're unhappy about the casualties, what they really fear is the very real prospect of this just dragging on without accomplishing anything. Thus, they're wary of deadlines but do want the troops out relatively quickly.

That becomes more obvious when people are given more choices. For example, CBS gave people four options about what to do now: increase the number of troops in Iraq, keep the same level, decrease the number, or remove them all. The results were: Increase, 14%; Stay the same, 25%; Decrease, 26%; Remove all, 29%. When CNN/USA Today/Gallup asked essentially the same question about what to do now - and it's important to note that both questions did use the word "now" - the answers came back: More troops, 19%; Same number as now, 26%; Withdraw some of them, 27%; Withdraw all of them, 26%.

The fact that the results match as closely as they do increases confidence that they accurately reflect actual opinion, which means that a definite majority of Americans want at least some troops brought home now. And, operating under the I think entirely reasonable assumption that there is no point to calling for withdrawing some troops now except as a first step leading to subsequent withdrawals, it seems clear that the same majority wants us to get out of Iraq with the only question being over what span of time - and a significant minority is already declaring "Out Now!"

We are the majority. It's an odd feeling.

Meanwhile, the Dums, despite Bush's failings and flailings, can't seem to get much traction with their criticism sans alternative approach; in fact, Congressional Democrats in polls have ranked even lower than Shrub. Maybe they should check this result from the ABC/Washington Post poll:

Do you think Democrats in Congress have gone too far or not far enough in opposing the war in Iraq? Not far enough, 53% - 37%

There's an old saying that "you can't beat somebody with nobody." And for many people, the Dummycrats, quite legitimately, add up to one being goose egg.

Footnote to the preceding

Updated In dismissing the concerns about persistently high poverty rates, Kirk Johnson, a senior policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation (where else?) argued

"It's not uncommon for poverty to go up three or four years after a recession is over."

However, this graph, done by the Christian Science Monitor based on Census Bureau data, says otherwise. Note that in most cases, the increase in poverty preceded the onset of a recession and before 1990 tended to level off and start a slow drop almost immediately after the recession ended. And in no case, not even after the 1990 recession, did poverty continue to increase for four years.

We of course shouldn't be surprised, but it still should be noted that Johnson's claim is trash.

Updated to clarify the source of the graphic.

A sense of where we are

A specter is haunting the US - the specter of class warfare. The thing that "no American wants," we're told by every talking head pundit that isn't busily denying that we are a class society at all. "Social mobility," the latter intone, noting how frequently a family might, based on income, move from the upper reaches of the second-poorest fifth of the population to the bottom layer of the middle fifth or dip from the wine cellar of the richest fifth to the penthouse of the second-richest fifth, or even, for the most audacious tale-spinners among them, waxing poetic about some rags-to-riches saga, jump from the hoi polloi to the high and mighty in one go - and all maintaining with wide-eyed, well-practiced, sincerity that these are typical and altogether relevant examples of actual day-to-day experiences of American families.

But there are three truths here: First, the "class warfare" of which they speak is derided not because it is either unnecessary or inadvisable but because they fear it, fear it deeply, spend every day wondering if this will be the day it will break out. Second, that same "class warfare" would better be described as a "counter-insurgency" because third, there has been - as I'm hardly the first to note - a genuine class warfare going on for some time: a war of the haves against the have-nots, the upper-dogs against the underdogs, a war not of the rich against the poor but of the rich against the rest, and a war mostly unremarked on because those in the best position to remark on it are for the most part those who benefit by the prevailing silence.

So herewith, a few observations on how goes the battle. For the home team (that's us), things are not looking so good.

Even with a robust economy that was adding jobs last year, the number of Americans who fell into poverty rose to 37 million - up 1.1 million from 2003 - according to Census Bureau figures released Tuesday.

It marks the fourth straight increase in the government's annual poverty measure.

Nearly 6 million more Americans live in poverty than in 2000, the last year that showed a decline. Nearly a third of the poor are children. And in case anyone was wondering if this was merely an effect of overall population growth, the increase was seen in percentage as well as in numbers: 12.5% in poverty in 2003, 12.7% in 2004.

The rest of us were having our own struggles: Median household income was unchanged from 2003, which with an inflation rate of about 2% (January 2003 - January 2004) means a 2% loss in real income. And the number of people without health insurance grew from 45 million to 45.8 million last year, about 15.5% of the population. The only reason that increase was not significantly bigger was because of, according to Charles Nelson of the Census Bureau,

an "increase in government coverage, notably Medicaid and the state children's health insurance program that offset a decline in employment-based coverage."

(Some sources gripe that the number without health coverage is inflated because it includes those who were without insurance at some point during the year. The number who were without coverage for the whole year may be as many as 9 million less. Well isn't that precious and very comforting to all those struggling people who can plan in advance when they'll get sick or have a health emergency to make sure it's at a time when they have insurance which isn't limited by a pre-existing condition clause arising from a gap in coverage.)

Some analysts were apparently surprised and disturbed by all those numbers. The issue was not even so much the figures themselves, but the fact that

[t]he increase in poverty came despite strong economic growth, which helped create 2.2 million jobs last year - the best showing for the labor market since 1999. By contrast, there was only a tiny increase of 94,000 jobs in 2003 and job losses in both 2002 and 2001.

That is, relatively high poverty is persisting over time even in the face of a supposedly improving job market. We're seeing a "generation of no progress," in the words of Sheldon Danziger of the National Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, who said that

"[s]omehow, we have to confront the fact that ... a rising economy no longer lifts all boats."

The right wing, of course, is having none of it.

"America looks like a giant jobs machine still," says Douglas Besharov, director of the American Enterprise Institute's Social and Individual Responsibility Project.

That may even be true. But how important is it? What's not being addressed in the attention to the job market is that the number of jobs alone is by no means an adequate measure of economic health, nor is it by itself an indicator of opportunities to escape poverty. What kinds of jobs are being created? Are they regular, full-time? (An increasing number aren't) Do they pay enough to support a family? (An increasing number don't.) Do they have benefits, particularly health insurance? (Again, for an increasing number the answer is no.)

What's more, the actual poverty rate might be significantly higher.

Developed in the 1960s, the poverty level is determined by the amount required to feed a family. But while food has become a less important expenditure for today's families, costs for things like childcare have gone up.

Along with rent, clothing, fuel, and the like - not to mention healthcare for those increasingly constricted by state Medicaid cuts. On the other hand, just to lighten the mood for a moment, we have one of those laughable bits of corporatist inconsistency that keep cropping up where they say A here because that's useful here and B there because that's useful there, even though A and B are flatly contradictory.

Conservatives ... point out that the rate might be inflated because it doesn't include non-cash benefits like food stamps or housing assistance.

Which means they are crediting the very same kind of "wasteful, useless, inefficient" government programs they like to gripe are just "throwing money at the problem" with significantly reducing poverty below what it would otherwise be.

One "problem" the corporatists don't shy away from throwing money at is the terrible, terrible difficulty of getting and keeping good quality top executives. Even as they pompously lecture on the need to nickel and dime their employees in order to "contain costs" and so "remain competitive," they wail and moan abut how tough economic life is at the top and how what they get is a mere pittance in light of their unreachable heights of importance to the bottom line. But frankly, compared to the home team, the visitors (because they really are so separated from the rest of us that they may as well be aliens) seem to be managing to struggle through. CNN/Money for August 30 had the (for them) good news:

In 2004, the ratio of average CEO pay to the average pay of a production (i.e., non-management) worker was 431-to-1, up from 301-to-1 in 2003, according to "Executive Excess," an annual report released Tuesday by the liberal research groups United for a Fair Economy and the Institute for Policy Studies.

In 1982, at the outset of the Decade of Greed, the average CEO made "only" 42 times as much as the average worker. By 1990, that ratio had reached 107-to-1 and by 2001 had skyrocketed to a breathtaking 525-to-1 before falling back some. As one means of comparison, a military general with 20 years experience makes less than seven times what a private drawing combat pay does.

As another means of comparison, the report, available in full at this link in .pdf format,

compares the growth in average CEO pay - which was $11.8 million in 2004 - to the growth in the minimum wage. Had the minimum wage risen as fast as CEO compensation since 1990, the researchers calculated, it would now be $23.03 an hour instead of just $5.15. And the average production worker would be making $110,126 a year instead of $27,460.

In some ways, though, comparing the compensation of a company chief to the average non-management worker is a specious argument, said Nell Minow, editor of the Corporate Library, an independent investment research firm providing data on corporate governance and risk.

"I'm willing to pay people based on the value they create," said Minow....

Okay, then answer me this: We supposed to assume, at least for the sake of comparison, that a little over 20 years ago the average CEO produced 42 times more value for the company than the average worker. Are we really supposed to believe that that disparity has increased by more than 10 times in the intervening years? Are we really supposed to believe that the average CEO produces 430 times as much value as the average worker? Anybody, are we? Really?

Well, in that case, what I want to know is, just what "value" does a CEO actually produce? Seriously. What "value" does a CEO produce that is demonstrably separate from the value produced by the people on the shop floor who actually run the machines? By the people on the road who actually sell the products? By the people who take the orders, process the orders, pack the orders? Which do you think is more realistic: A business run by its employees or members (i.e., a cooperative) or a bunch of CEO's making coffee, answering phones, counseling clients, and running drill presses?

But I'm sorry, I'm being impolite. I'm even verging on - gasp! - class warfare. Better to close with Sheldon Danziger's attempt to look on the bright side. "The good news," he said, "is that poverty is a lot lower than it was in 1993." And what's more, we've discovered that your brain tumor is not inoperable: It will only require a lobotomy.

The Curse of Fengeek

There has for a long time been a dispute about the so-called "placebo effect," where a treatment with no active substances seems to have real clinical effect. As the Christian Science Monitor for Wednesday says,

[w]hen an inert placebo acts like a drug, is it just a psychological illusion? Or is it a real biological effect? ...

The effect has been demonstrated often enough to show that some patients appear to benefit from such belief. But there hasn't been enough evidence to convince skeptics that anything more than the so-called power of suggestion is at work.

But, the article immediately adds, "That's changing."

Research reported last week suggests that it's both [illusion and effect]. The mere belief that they had received a pain killer was enough to release the brain's natural painkilling endorphins in the patients tested, scientists say. ...

"The findings of this study are counter to the common thought that the placebo effect is purely psychological due to suggestion and that it does not represent a real physical change." says University of Michigan neuroscientist Jon-Kar Zubieta. He is principal author of the study published Aug. 24 in The Journal of Neuroscience.

Previous research had looked at brain scans to see how activity changed in parts of the brain that register pain in patients that experienced relief from placebos. Those trials found a connection, but skeptics dismissed it on the grounds that it could be coincidence unrelated to mental state.

However, the new showing that the patients' sense of relief coincided with the release of pain-reducing chemicals in the brain is much stronger evidence that, as the researchers said,

while pain does have "sensory components," it is "a psychologically constructed experience"

that can be affected by our expectations.

There are, indeed, some ways in which belief can make it so.

Just a warning...

...that posting might be even a little spottier than it has been the past couple of weeks. We finally had to give in and give up on an apartment with a landlord who's been good to us and upstairs neighbors we like in a city we've grown rather fond of (with a peace & justice movement we were just starting to connect to) - all because the cost of gasoline to get to and from work was eating up a good hunk of my earnings.

With the cost of a gallon of gas at the neighborhood station shooting up 57¢ in one go this week, the decision to move significantly closer to work (from about 35 miles each way to about two) proved to be a good one, if unfortunately coming a little later than it should have.

The point here is that this will be no leisurely move, it's going to be really hectic over the next month. Something will have to suffer and since neither packing nor work can be sacrificed, I'm afraid blogging will be high on the list.

Satire is dead

Yes, I know that's been said before but this time it's really, really true. Really.

Eve's Apple on Tuesday posted the text of what is apparently a serious email from a group called Columbia Christians for Life that claims that Hurricane Katrina was shaped like a 6-week old fetus and was a message from God to "REPENT AMERICA!" Money quote:

Baby-murder state # 1 - California (125 abortion centers) - land of earthquakes, forest fires, and mudslides
Baby-murder state # 2 - New York (78 abortion centers) - 9-11 Ground Zero
Baby-murder state # 3 - Florida (73 abortion centers) - Hurricanes Bonnie, Charley, Frances, Ivan, Jeanne in 2004; and now, Hurricane Katrina in 2005

The email also made pointed reference to the presence of five abortion clinics in New Orleans.

However, it appears there may be something of an internecine struggle among the fanatics: The very next day, Eve's Apple posted a press release from a group calling itself, yes indeedy, Repent America, which opens thusly:

Just days before "Southern Decadence", an annual homosexual celebration attracting tens of thousands of people to the French Quarters section of New Orleans, an act of God destroys the city.

And just in case you thought they were remarking on the coincidence, the group's director declared that "Although the loss of lives is deeply saddening, this act of God destroyed a wicked city," and "May this act of God cause us all to think about what we tolerate in our city limits, and bring us trembling before the throne of Almighty God."

Jonathan Swift is officially irrelevant.

Thanks to Bruce at This is Class Warfare for the link.

Two things noted in passing

1) A USA Today article from last week on how rising oil prices are in some ways hurting US business and foreign policy interests noted some of the ways various countries were using their growing oil wealth, citing examples from Norway financing its retirement programs to construction of luxury hotels along the Persian Gulf. In that list, of one program and one program only was it said "such spending can't continue indefinitely."

And what was that doomed program? Hugo Chavez's use of oil money to support programs for the poor of Venezuela; specifically mentioned was the provision of half-price food through government-run stores.

Now, admittedly, if oil prices drop, as some predict they will (and dramatically), yes, such expenditures will be under pressure. But why is that not equally true of, say, oil-financed luxury hotel construction? Why do we need to be assured that supporting the poor is what "can't continue indefinitely?" Or does the question answer itself?

2) Okay, I know I'm a bug on this but still, there is an implication here I find ominous. This is from an AP article for Tuesday about preparations for Katrina, specifically, about people taking refuge in the Superdome.

Residents lined up for blocks, clutching meager belongings and crying children as National Guardsman searched them for guns, knives and drugs. It was almost 10:30 p.m. before the last person was searched and allowed in. Thornton estimated 8,000 to 9,000 were inside when the doors closed for the 11 p.m. curfew.

"National Guardsman searched them?" What, now you can be required to waive your Fourth Amendment rights in order to be given refuge from a hurricane? What would have happened if someone refused? Would they be denied entry, told to get out and take their chances? In that case, what happens after curfew? Are the refusers arrested? And what did officials imagine was going to happen inside the building? Armed insurrection? Drug-crazed rampages?

If the argument is made that it was for "safety," why can't that same argument be made for any large public gathering? Should you have to be prepared to submit to a search to attend a baseball game? A parade? A park on a busy day?

A demonstration?

What got me about this as much as the search is the way is was reported: It was treated as nothing special, it didn't seem the least extraordinary to the reporter that people were given the choice between turning out their pockets on command or being turned out into the storm. If the searches hadn't caused the lines, I doubt they would have been mentioned at all.

I've maintained for a while that part of the purpose of such searches, undertaken at times and under conditions where people feel constrained by necessity to cooperate, is to make official intrusion into our lives a routine experience, something just passively accepted, as our rights, our privacy, are stripped away layer by layer under the rubric first of emergency, then of necessity, then of safety, and finally of convenience.

Apparently, at least in the case of certain AP reporters, that goal has been achieved.

Jeopardy!

Jeopardy! for Sunday
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
Who is Franz Liszt?

FINAL JEOPARDY!
Awards

Established in 1961, the John Muir Award is the highest award given by this organization.

==

Jeopardy! for Monday
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is the Sierra Club?

JEOPARDY!
Games for $200

At first this "familial" company rejected Monopoly due to "fifty-two design flaws."

==

Jeopardy! for Tuesday
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is Parker Brothers?

JEOPARDY!
Games for $600

This murder weapon in the classic game of Clue is mentioned in the rhyme "Jack Be Nimble."

==

Jeopardy! for Wednesday
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is a candlestick?

JEOPARDY!
Games for $1000

In 1845, Peter Mark Roget designed a portable pocket version of this board game.

==

Jeopardy! for Thursday
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is chess?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
The First Millenium A.D. for $400

In A.D. 80, Roman emperor Titus dedicated this ampitheater.

==

Jeopardy! for Friday
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is the Colosseum?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
The First Millenium A.D. for $1200

In 553, missionaries smuggled silk-worms out of this country, thus beginning the European silk industry.

==

Jeopardy! for Saturday
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is China?

DOUBLE JEOPARDY!
The First Millenium A.D. for $2000

The city of Byzantium was renamed this in 330.

==

Jeopardy! for Sunday
YESTERDAY'S QUESTION
What is Constantinople?

FINAL JEOPARDY!
City Seals

Though it's thought the phoenix on its seal refers to the 1906 fire, it predates the fire by almost 50 years.

Have pity on them...

...because I swear, they just can't help themselves. The lies come so thick, so fast, so naturally - well, I just figure that the poor boys just can't help it any more. Even when they have to know they'll be found out, even when the lies are so transparently silly that they are not only pointless, they are even unnecessary, they still tell them. Such pitiable creatures.

I refer, of course, to our favorite joined-at-the-hip politicos, George and Tony.

For his part, George is putting on his bravest smile following the failure of negotiations over the draft version of Iraq's constitution.

Citing Sunni objections, he said: "Of course, there's disagreements. Some Sunnis have expressed reservations about various provisions in the constitution and that's their right as free individuals in a free society," the president said.

"Have expressed reservations?" I suppose that's one way to put it.

[T]he 15-member Sunni negotiating team immediately rejected the document, which it called "illegitimate."

"We call upon the Arab League, the United Nations and international organizations to intervene so that this document is not passed and so that the clear defect in it is corrected," said the statement read by Abdel-Nasser al-Janabi.

Yeah, I'd say there are some "reservations" there.

The reality is, the "negotiations" have turned into a power play - secondarily by the Kurds, who were pretty well assured of getting most of what they wanted going in, and primarily by the Shiites, who have forced through a version of federalism that enables them to establish their own autonomous region in the south if they so choose. Their last-minute "concessions," such allowing the details of federalism to be worked out by the parliament scheduled to be elected in December - a parliament they, with 60% of the population, fully expect to dominate - would appear to the Sunnis as meaningless froth.

They view this is a dangerous document that will leave them isolated, cut off from a fair share of the oil wealth, and - with its virtual ban on Baathists being is positions of authority - politically under-represented for at least a generation. An often-overlooked point is the draft's statement that Iraq is part of the Islamic world and its Arab citizens are part of the Arab nation - but it does not say that Iraq is part of the Arab nation. That innocent-sounding statement was supposedly included to ease the minds of Iraq's non-Arab population - but to the Sunnis, it has ominous overtones. To them, being part of the Arab nation means looking west, to Syria, to Jordan, to Saudi Arabia, to Egypt, to the states of the Arabian peninsula. Being part of the Islamic world, on the other hand, they interpret as looking east - to, in particular, the old enemy Iran, which they already suspect of having too much influence over some Shiite politicians and groups (including the leading partner in the Shiite parliamentary coalition: the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, or SCIRI).

Of course, it's not actually that simple or clear-cut: There will be Sunnis who will support the constitution and there will be Shiites who will oppose it (Moqtada al-Sadr is already speaking against it) and there may be splits between religious and secular members of both communities depending on how strong they understand the role of Islam to be in governing and law-making. But overall, it's reasonable to say that Kurds and Shiites will favor the constitution and Sunnis will oppose it. The question is, how strongly; particularly, how strong will the Sunni opposition be?

So what will happen in October? If I'm right, nothing good, no matter the vote. The less likely possibility, in my present subject-to-change opinion, is that the constitution will be rejected and the whole process collapses and has to be started over. That would be a political disaster that would frustrate large parts of the Shiite community and would run the risk of loosing the thus-far-contained anger of the Shiites against the Sunnis. The more likely possibility, I think, is that the constitution will be approved over the objections of a large number of Sunnis who will then feel even more disaffected, regarding the constitution as something forced on them which is harmful to the needs of their community - and the insurgency will grow. Right now it looks to me like a lose-lose proposition.

Keep smiling, Georgie - it's all you have.

As for Tony, well, the lie in question here is a bit older but the smackdown just arrived courtesy of The Sunday Observer (UK). Following the July 7 bombings in London, Tonykins swore up and down that this had nothing to do with the UK's involvement in the occupation of Iraq. Nothing at all. It was the result of a "perverted and poisonous misinterpretation of Islam." It was just, it didn't - well, they just hated our freedom, that's all.

Right.

The Foreign Office's top official warned Downing Street that the Iraq war was fuelling Muslim extremism in Britain a year before the 7 July bombings, The Observer can reveal.

Despite repeated denials by Number 10 that the war made Britain a target for terrorists, a letter from Michael Jay, the Foreign Office permanent under-secretary, to the cabinet secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull - obtained by this newspaper - makes the connection clear.

The letter, dated 18 May 2004, says British foreign policy was a 'recurring theme' in the Muslim community, 'especially in the context of the Middle East peace process and Iraq'. ...

Attached to the letter is a strategy document, also obtained by The Observer, which reveals further concerns. It says Britain is now viewed as a 'crusader state', on a par with America as a potential target. 'Muslim resentment towards the West is worse than ever,' the document, 'Building Bridges with Mainstream Islam', says.

The letter, which can be seen in its entirety at this link, notes other causes of Muslim anger, including "discrimination, disadvantage and exclusion," but says that British foreign policy "plays a significant role in creating a feeling of anger and impotence" that "seems to be a key driver behind recruitment by extremist organisations."

In other words, Tony, you were told that Muslims in the UK were feeling angry and excluded. You knew. You knew that your foreign policy was making it worse. You knew the anger was building and you knew why. You knew it for well over a year. And yet you still had the nerve, even as the blood of your citizens was flowing you had the gall to stand up there and declare that this didn't have anything to do with you, oh no, not one single blessed little thing. You are a liar, Tony. A liar and a moral coward.

No wonder you and George get along so well.

Where have all the flowers gone

You've probably heard about the video of Green Day's song "Wake Me When September Ends." I hear it's the most requested video on VH1, so it is getting around some. You know I don't normally have posts that are just a link and there are sites that specialize in this kind of thing, but I found the video moving and so just in case you hadn't seen it, you can see it here.

When you get to the linked site you have to select "videos" from the list at the bottom, then choose the video you want and your connection speed.

An oldie but a goodie #2

I'm sorry to keep bring up these ancient items - this one is a week old, f'r gunness sake - but sometimes there's just something that gnaws at me until I have to publicly gripe about it.

I haven't written anything about the Able Danger business because it seemed to me - and it still does seem to me - that the more that comes out about it, the less there is to it. In fact, it seems at this point the only reason anyone is talking about it is because the wingers want to use it in some really screwy (screwy even for them) fashion to smear Jamie Gorelick and through that blame 9/11 on Bill Clinton.

The argument in a nutshell is this: In 2000 the Defense Department figured out that Mohammed Atta and three others who became 9/11 hijackers were in the country and members of an al-Qaeda cell. But the DOD couldn't tell the FBI because an internal 1995 Justice Department memo that Gorelick authored created a "wall" between the criminal and intelligence divisions of the DOJ. Therefore, the cell wasn't broken up, therefore 9/11 is the Clinton administration's fault. QED. The inconvenient facts that the memo created no wall, that in fact this "wall" did not exist, that there is no way an internal DOJ memo could bind the DOD, and that it's even questionable if Able Danger did finger Atta and company more than - and even this is a perhaps - names on a considerably longer list, don't concern them, as facts often don't.

But I'm getting off the track here. This is what I wanted to gripe about: According to an August 22 story by UPI Homeland and National Security Editor Shaun Waterman,

Shaffer told UPI that the project was tasked with "developing targeting information for al-Qaida on a global scale," and used data-mining techniques to look for "patterns, associations and linkages" in a huge collection of open source databases to which the team had access.

He said the kinds of information available included travel and immigration records, and information about credit card and telephone use.

Just when the flaming hell did things like travel, credit card, and telephone records become "open source databases?"

Now, it simply may be - probably is - that Lt. Col. Shaffer, who has yet to produce the massive documentation he claims to have and admits ignorance of just how the data-mining project worked and how it obtained its information, simply doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. I expect the information was gathered the usual way: Either it was stolen, obtained through the use of one of those "national security letters," the ones that enable to feds to say "we don't need no stinkin' warrant," or, perhaps most likely, was just happily passed on by your airline/credit card provider/telephone company "in response to a request from a law enforcement agency" that their "privacy" policies list as one of the times they'll do a data dump about you.

The thing is, even though those alternatives would pretty much limit access to the cops while "open source" would mean the info is available to anyone with the bucks to buy it, that doesn't make me feel a whole lot better.

An oldie but a goodie #1

This is an old item that I'd been meaning to post since I first saw it but it kept slipping down the pile. Still, even though it's from August 3, it's worthwhile. It was a commentary written by Arnaud de Borchgrave, UPI Editor at Large, better known to some of the more gray-haired among us as author of "The Spike," a novel that tried to mainstream the idea that criticism of US foreign policy was the result of a Soviet disinformation campaign. The column in question was a rather disjointed, meandering effort but contained some noteworthy facts about the growing income gap.

In 2004, the median salary and bonus for CEOs soared 14.5 percent while paychecks for salaried employees averaged a 3.4 percent increase. ...

William J. McDonough, chairman of the Public Company Oversight Board since 2003, and president of the New York Federal Reserve Bank for the previous decade, called the yawning gap "the single most important issue" in the United States now. ... Income disparity is now wider than anywhere in the European Union or Japan, and can only be found in third world countries. ...

The gap has also set new records - and keeps widening. Over the past three decades, the share of national income going to the top 1 percent of households has almost doubled - from 7.7 percent to 14.7 percent. ... Sliced another way, between 1979 and 2000, real income of the poorest fifth rose 6.4 percent while the top fifth shot up 70 percent.

De Borchgrave properly mentions, as is often overlooked, that average family income has been sustained by the entry of tens of millions of women into the workforce, dramatically increasing the number of two-income families - but notes that this is a one-time boost. (There is, after all, a practical limit on the number of families that can be two-income.)

He closes with one observation that I think is supposed to be a warning but which I take as hopeful:

What is happening on Executive Row is guaranteed to produce a backlash of labor militancy as dissident unions open a drive for new members - with a whiff of class warfare grapeshot.

We can only hope.

Oh well, goodbye - Arf!

Greyhound has stopped bus service to nearly 1,000 smaller towns this year, the Christian Science Monitor tells us.

Service stopped at 81 locales last week alone, and hundreds more are expected to be dropped as the Dallas-based carrier and its subsidiaries roll out new routes across the country into 2006. ...

Left in a puff of exhaust are the small towns that helped define the image of the Greyhound as a low-rent hitch that appealed to Americans' sense of adventure and earned it broad cultural recognition in everything from country songs to movies like "Midnight Cowboy."

To be fair, the change is understandable: Ridership is off by nearly 70% from the 1970 peak and the company lost $22 million in the first quarter of 2005. And it found from surveys of its passengers that they were becoming more urban, less rural, less interested in long-distance routes (over 450 miles), and more interested in speed.

So I can understand both what Greyhound is doing - choosing to focus on more direct routes between urban centers - and why it's doing it. Still, I can't help but be saddened by what it represents: a reflection on how we're changing, with smaller towns becoming even more isolated, more cut off from the wider world around them, and - partly as cause, partly as result - shrinking both in population and our attention. You don't have to idealize or romanticize "small town America" to realize that a culture loses something when the choices of for lack of a better term lifestyle are reduced and when "speed" and "efficiency" become not even the primary but increasingly the only standards of measurement. And even if you celebrate the energy and diversity of cities you can be aware of what the increasing division between urban and rural can mean for our politics.

Personally, I prefer the train to the bus for long-distance travel, but I have ridden Greyhound: I did two cross-country round trips and another round trip between the east coast and Denver. It was while thinking of those that I noticed that in those surveys Greyhound did, passengers' biggest complaint was "lengthy, meandering routes."

Damn, I always thought that was the best part of the trip.