May 2006 Archives

The world's oceans aren't the only thing that global warming is sending creeping up the shores of our lives. Scientists are reporting that as we pour more and more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we're going to be making the country's poison ivy plants very, very happy.

Not only will the carbon dioxide-drunk poison ivy plants grow faster and larger, they'll be pumping out a more poisonous form of that excellent chemical (urushiol--whoever named this stuff picked a suitably creepy name)that causes misery for 80% of human beings who get it on their skin.

Having spent a while in a hospital as a child after wandering through smoke coming from a field containing poison ivy (thank god I had my shorts on; the entire rest of my body broke out--and I was scarfing steroids faster than Barry Bonds), I'm not looking forward to this super-poison ivy.

The researchers used a Duke research forest dotted with pipes that allows them to pump out extra CO2. In the poison ivy experiment, they raised the level of CO2 to what it's expected to be in 2050 (about 200 million parts per million higher, for you wonks out there). And lo, and behold, super ivy!

So another part of the wonderful world of global warming snaps into place. Unintended consequence? I don't think so. Plants are our friends? Not in this case. No more walks in the woods for me--see you at the beach (as long as the damn jellyfish don't start getting off on more CO2 too!).

The West was united after 9/11. It understood that it now faced an awesome threat from forces inspired by an ethos of blind hatred, religious intolerance, and ideological insanity. The time had come to wage a war of ideas against that threat, a war that the course of the West’s entire intellectual development had prepared it to fight, and without which the continued evolution of humanity would be impossible.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration, itself a bastion of blind hatreds, irrational ideology, and imperialistic fantasies that would have shocked and digusted the Founding Generation, chose to instead re-fight the last war, the Gulf War. It chose to put personal vendettas, family alliances, vainglorious dreams, and short-sided economic agendas ahead of this noble and essential cause. And all the while, as this May 21, 2006 Washington Post expose reveals, the authentic enemies of freedom, of democracy, of spiritual pluralism, and of the rights of women, have continued to propagate their venomous ideology across the globe.

Mr. President, with allies like the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia, have we any need of enemies?

*****

This is a Saudi textbook. (After the intolerance was removed.)

By Nina Shea

Sunday, May 21, 2006

Saudi Arabia's public schools have long been cited for demonizing the West as well as Christians, Jews and other "unbelievers." But after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 -- in which 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudis -- that was all supposed to change.

A 2004 Saudi royal study group recognized the need for reform after finding that the kingdom's religious studies curriculum "encourages violence toward others, and misguides the pupils into believing that in order to safeguard their own religion, they must violently repress and even physically eliminate the 'other.' " Since then, the Saudi government has claimed repeatedly that it has revised its educational texts.

Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the United States, has worked aggressively to spread this message. "The kingdom has reviewed all of its education practices and materials, and has removed any element that is inconsistent with the needs of a modern education," he said on a recent speaking tour to several U.S. cities. "Not only have we eliminated what might be perceived as intolerance from old textbooks that were in our system, we have implemented a comprehensive internal revision and modernization plan." The Saudi government even took out a full-page ad in the New Republic last December to tout its success at "having modernized our school curricula to better prepare our children for the challenges of tomorrow." A year ago, an embassy spokesman declared: "We have reviewed our educational curriculums. We have removed materials that are inciteful or intolerant towards people of other faiths." The embassy is also distributing a 74-page review on curriculum reform to show that the textbooks have been moderated.

The problem is: These claims are not true.

Here's a comment from an earlier thread from Monkey for a Memorial Day meditation as the war in Iraq drags on:

I'd like to throw this lure out into the cyber-pond and get some feedback on something that has been really setting me off this weekend...

Tell me what goes through your mind when you hear Memorial Day references like "they gave their lives so you may enjoy the freedoms you have today"?

The so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who mounted the lying attacks on John Kerry's military record are still at it, according to a frontpage story in today's New York Times. The story shows that every new fact that has emerged since the election gives the lie to the SBVT's claims.

Yet the paper is still pulling its punches, as if despite the new evidence, we should all still be treating this pack of lies as if there must have been some factual foundation in there somewhere.

What will it take for a major news outlet like the New York Times to finally denounce the SBVT's role in the 2004 election, and show us the web of money and connections that linked its work to the Bush campaign? Or even easier, perhaps someone at the NSA could simply leak a few phone conversations as the arrangements were being made?

Part of the mystery is why the SBVT claims took hold in August, when they'd apppeared before. I first saw the SBVT claims as the blogmaster for the Kerry campaign in the fall of 2003, when they began to pop up on the blog, although they did not appear to be part of an organized campaign at the time. The bloggers responded quickly with the facts and the attacks ended rather quickly.

Then there was an organized effort in the spring of 2004, but it didn't gain any traction in the mainstream media. There was a lot more material out there on the Kerry blog and all the other blogs supporting the campaign about John's military record, but there was no major stir on the blogosphere either.

The Convention showcased John Kerry's military heroism. It may be that we thought the most challenging record we needed to be defending was John Kerry's outspoken opposition to the Vietnam War once he came back home, and that was the characterization that needed the most counterbalancing. Instead, the image of Kerry in navy whites, the salutes, the "reporting for duty" became the perfect opportunity to give the SBVT the spotlight and to take JK down a notch.

Something happened after the convention. Instead of ignoring or going lightly over the new SVBT allegations and moving on, all of a sudden there was wall-to-wall coverage, with the totally undocumented claims of the SBVT being treated as if they were on the same level of credibility as all of Kerry's military records. All of this clamor occurred without a single shred of documentary evidence to back up the SBVT's claims.

Would I have liked the campaign to have counter-attacked earlier? Yes. But we should not be under any illusions about whether such a counter-attack would have succeeded in the poisonous atmosphere that the media created.

As Bob Somerby has shown so clearly at The Daily Howler in his analysis of how the media croaked Al Gore in 2000, if the national media are collectively framing a candidate in an unquestioned negative way, it is very difficult for a campaign to overcome this negative frame.

I remember hoping after Nixon's 2nd victory that I would live long enough to see him disgraced. I find myself having the same feeling now about the media's handling of the SBVT. The media's failure to treat the SBVT in 2004 as a bunch of right-wing funded liars, has gone a long way towards keeping America safe for corporate profiteerism and the realm of our 21st century robber barons.

Go into most offices on Capitol Hill and you see many items on the wall: photos of the Member with Important People, framed newspaper clippings of special events, medals, awards, maps of the home district, and letters from schoolchildren. But most also have paintings, drawings or collages from local artists and talented high school students.

I always look at these pieces because they say a great deal about the home district/state and the Member. Artists and students embed pleas in many of these pieces; I wonder if the Members notice the messages, and if they care.

"Official" Washington has had an uneasy relationship with the arts lately; actually the tension goes back to the assasination of John F. Kennedy. The Kennedy administration embraced the arts; brought them into the White House in a way that has not been seen since. When President Johnson took over, the cultural tensions increased, but the creation of the National Endowment for the Arts, in 1965, eased the overt comparisons.

What does a country owe its artists? What do artists contribute to the soul of a country? How much direct support can a government give to the arts before the artists are co-opted and nationalized?

These are tricky questions, but as the national conversation about culture and soul has deteriorated into the collective questioning about our very survival, much less our place in the world, they are rarely discussed. I propose we have lost our way, in part, because we have stopped noticing those pleas and messages embedded in the drawings of children and the searing works that artists are producing.

Nita Penfold, "Survivor"

When people struggle and struggle to get through the day and pay their bills, it is easy to forget the weavings of the soul that can construct beauty, make meaning out of pain, and shine the spotlight on exactly where we have lost our way as a country. But such work is God's work, or at least spirit's work, and we need to honor the process of creation in ourselves, even if the nation has turned away from such processes. The national soul is dying before our eyes, probably because of the pain of seeing and the need for obliterating consciousness.

But we, the people, can find what solace there is in making. For this Memorial Day weekend, let's create our own memorials to what was, what is, and what could be. Photograph your creations and send them in to info@democracycellproject.net and let's have a showing next week.

Art therapy. Needed now.

Exxon Mobil is a story of what happens when greed meets immorality.

January, 2006

DALLAS - Exxon Mobil Corp. posted record profits for any U.S. company on Monday — $10.71 billion for the fourth quarter and $36.13 billion for the year — as the world’s biggest publicly traded oil company benefited from high oil and natural-gas prices and solid demand for refined products.

The results exceeded Wall Street expectations and Exxon shares rose more than 3 percent in afternoon trading.

The company’s earnings amounted to $1.71 per share for the October-December quarter, up 27 percent from $8.42 billion, or $1.30 per share, in the year ago quarter. The result topped the then-record quarterly profit of $9.92 billion Exxon posted in the third quarter of 2005.

May 29, 2006 Edition of Business Week

Scroll through the financial data of the biggest U.S. corporations and a surprising fact appears: Arguably the mightiest of them all, Exxon Mobil (XOM ), has left its employee pension plans with the biggest funding deficit. Its assets are $11.2 billion short of projected obligations, according to company figures as of Dec. 31 -- greater even than the gaps at struggling Ford Motor (F )and General Motors (GM ).

Exxon could write a check for its underfunding this afternoon. The oil giant has $27 billion in its coffers. It generated free cash of $9 billion last quarter -- almost enough to cover the pension shortfall. And it carries an AAA credit rating.

So why won't it? Exxon says it's in compliance with all labor laws and regulations. "We strenuously object to the use of the word 'underfunded' because we are not, [according to] the terms of the people who set the regulations," says media relations adviser Dave Gardner. "The company has the wherewithal to meet its funding obligations, period."

Well, that depends on what accounting methods you use. Just ask United Airlines pension non-recipients, or Enron, or...the list goes on and on.

The fact is, Exxon could be topping off its tank for employees but isn't. It's declining to put more money away for a rainy day while the sun is shining on the oil industry. And it isn't apologizing, either. "We basically chose not to," says Gardner. "That's not an investment we want to put more into at this point. Our financial strength provides excellent security for any pension." We'll see.

This is how Exxon treats its employees who have worked their whole lives in service of the company. Lee Raymond gets $400 million pension, but the average worker can just eat cat food if the going gets tough.

Shorter version ->> Exxon to employees: Screw you, old people.

There's this kind of crap-masquerading-as-journalism out there to unpack and it's not from the pages of People Magazine, but you'd never know it. It's from The New York Times and The Washington Post as they engage in a breakneck speed race to the bottom of the barrel.

First up, yesterday's front-page tabloidism from NYT:

When the subject of Bill and Hillary Clinton comes up for many prominent Democrats these days, Topic A is the state of their marriage — and how the most dissected relationship in American life might affect Mrs. Clinton's possible bid for the presidency in 2008.

Here's a real question for all of you: When the subject of Hillary running for president in 2008 comes up, does your mind go straight to the panty-sniffing questions of the sexual state of their marriage, or do your questions run more towards the, "Is this the candidate that's going to get us out of this hellhole of problems that the Bush Administration has caused for us?"

I thought so.

The dynamics of a couple's marriage are hard to gauge from the outside, even for a couple as well known as the Clintons. But interviews with some 50 people and a review of their respective activities show that since leaving the White House, Bill and Hillary Clinton have built largely separate lives — partly because of the demands of their distinct career paths and partly as a result of political calculations.

50 people? When you interview five people for a story like this, it's the writer's decision to do it. When you interview 50, it's the editors. Enough said. The message is pretty unmistakable. If Hillary runs, we will all be treated to endless months of discussions about Hillary as the frigid bitch and Bill Clinton's penis.

Congratulations New York Times. You have now made yourselves the moral and information equivalent of the supermarket tabloid, The Globe, which ran this headline on Tuesday:

_"BUSH MARRIAGE BREAKUP! Exclusive! Separate lives in the White House ... Nasty fights ... Booze problems ... Laura urges counseling"

Nice.

Not to be outdone, The Washington Post yesterday published this drippy Bill Frist as sexy-hairy-gorilla-alpha-male-superhero story:

The houses were dark on Bill Frist's street. A morning bird chirped; the others were waiting for dawn. But Frist was awake, and his bedroom light was on. "I'm going to take a shower," the Senate majority leader said brightly. Ten minutes later, the blow dryer roared.

Paging, WaPo editors, pick up the purple prose courtesy phone please, paging the WaPo editors...

[Editor's note: The Congressional Progressive Caucus held an ad hoc public hearing on Capitol Hill today addressing the question: Would war with Iran help or hurt U.S. national security?]

Rep. Barbara Lee opens the session by reminding us that she proposed HRes 82, which disavows pre-emption as a foreign relations approach. She proposes that we are heading towards pre-emption with Iran. Iran is heading towards a quagmire and "This is not an administration that can be trusted".

She points out no oversight hearings have been held on pre-emption on Iran and ask "how can we force these to happen? We want the truth told, in keeping with our Constitutional responsibilities."

The goal for today: Prevent another misguided war and address pre-emption.

Members and speakers: Rep. Lynne Woolsey

Members who are here: Manuel Becerra, Jim McDermott, Chris Van Hollen, Rush Holt, Jan Schakowsky, Steve Rothman

First speaker:

Professor Samantha Power

Professor Power is Former Executive Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy and author of the widely acclaimed, thought-provoking book entitled “A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide.” She will address: The Use of Force and Key Questions About the Bush Doctrine of Preemptive Warfare in the Post 9/11 World. Pulitzer for nonfiction, Books Critics Nonfiction and Council on Foreign Relations.

She is talking about pre-emption in the context of genocide. She wrote a book about the major responses of the US to genocide over the 20th century. The response has generally been one of apathy.

How many saw the NY Times cartoon showing a protest, with a two-sided sign; one side said "Get out of Iraq" and the other side said "Get Into Darfur"...Well, that's what we see over and over.

She makes four points:

1. On the non-use of force in service of our values: Lessons of 20th C. genocide: looking at it allows us to isolate how we act when "mere" values are at stake, and otherwise -- the toolbox we have of diplomacy, denunciation, prosecution, coalitions, sanctions, etc., stays shut. Exceptions occur when the nexus of international and domestic political costs (Darfur and Balkans are examples), but in any case the response is both spasmodic and reactive. Eventually, the hammer comes down. Also, historically there has been no domestic political price for early response. Weakness begets weakness politically.

2. American power: In the old days we measured power by stash; the GNP, military and economic power. The Republican party does not know that true power is measured in influence. Credibility counts as well. Power is measured by competence also--Katrina response affects the perception of the US's competence around the world. They also see we cannot finish what we set out to do. We need to recalibrate our words and reframe.

3. It's not just us -- that is, issues of competence and legitimacy -- there's a void on the international stage right now -- the welfare of humans need to be taken seriously. The Khaddafi article in New Yorker - Khadaffi's son was asked about what they would do without an army if Egypt attacks them". His response: "Why should Libya have an army; the US will defend us." Meanwhile, there are no takers for protection forces in Darfur.

Here's an interesting piece from the Hartford Courant website about the beating that Joe Lieberman is taking in the blogosphere, especially on YouTube. Lieberman's primary opponent Ned Lamont just stunned most political observers by getting more than double the number of delegates he needed at the state Democratic convention to win a place on the primary ballot.

It was clear before the convention that Lieberman had earned the enmity of most of the progressive blogosphere; the convention showed that Lieberman was in trouble at home as well, since any strong candidate would have been able to keep a challenger like Lamont below the 15% threshold for getting on the ballot.

Lamont's success to date raises one of the most difficult intraparty questions for an out-of-power party: what is the trade-off between disciplining an incumbent like Lieberman, versus the chances that succeeding in knocking Lieberman off might jeopardize the party's chances of taking back the Senate? If Lamont continues to gain strength, this question will hopefully be moot.

[Editor's Note: While Polly sigh is, um, unavailable, The Democracy Cell Project is delighted to welcome her brother, Paulie Sigh. Thank you Paulie, and enjoy your stay here!]

Yo! This is Paulie Sigh – Polly’s brudder. She axed me to tell yous fine folks dat she is ok – just busy tryin to do biziness usin' a bunch of cell phones. Every time she tries to make a call, it’s like a drum beat – tap, tap, tap.

Anyhows, she says dat I should tell yous what’s on my mind. So I says that won’t take too long – there ain’t much there. She says tell yous what’s got my goat. I tell her that’s dawg – not a goat! Goats don’t bark, silly.

So I says to her that I tink dat Louie “Big Eyes” gots his paws in the pick-up bags because the bags been awful light lately. So I asks him “Yo Louie – why is the bags so light – you ain’t been dippin’ has you?” “No, Boss – Honest!” he says. “The bags is different now. When I make the pick up downtown – ya know, on Wall Street, I need a garbage bag there’s so much dough! But I go down to the garment district, I use a sandwich bag – it’s like there’s nuthin there!”

“Listen to me Louie - I saw on the television the udder night dat the economy is on fire. There was dis guy from Connecticut – Chris “Lyin’ in the shade” Shays and he says “we got a great economy”. Then there was dis nice lady – Georgette “My father wanted a son” Mosbacher and she was sayin “The economy is doing great. It’s fantastic”. And one more – this Eddie “loose lips” Gillespie says that them Republicans is the ones who stand for high economic growth. Or maybe he was high when he said that – I don’t know.”

So Louie says to me that these are all Republican front-men type folks who support Bush – "Paulie: did they explain WHY they thought the economy was so good?” “No, Louie, they didn’t have to. They was all on Larry King Live so I knew they was telling the truth. Larry don’t lie to nobody.”

And you stop rolling your eyes at me!”

For a political party whose "strict constructionists" claim to value the "original intent" of the Framers above all else, the Republicans are not getting their money's worth from Attorney General Gonzales.

Take Gonzales' appearance Sunday on ABC's "This Week." Gonzales once again raised the option of prosecuting journalists for published leaked classified information under the creaky 1917 Espionage Act (a wonderful bill that was passed in an earlier frenzy of domestic oppression against critics of President Wilson's devious maneuvering to get the U.S. involved in World War I.)

Gonzales said that he understood "very much the role that the press plays in our society, the protection under the First Amendment we want to promote and respect...but it can't be the case that that right [1st amendment] trumps over the right [sic] that Americans would like to see, the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity."

Very smooth. One "right" trumps another right. Except that there is no alleged "right" in the Constitution that guarantees "the ability of the federal government to go after criminal activity."

Now we have been learning that President Bush and his minions must believe in this unfettered "right...to go after criminal activity." They've thrown so many Constitutional rights out the window, some of which have been around for hundreds of years (habeus caucus for example), all in the name of pursuing terrorists.

But as Larry Beinhart puts so succinctly over at Huffington Post,
"With all this horseshit," where are the ponies?
(For those of you too young to remember President Ronald Reagan, one of his most well-known avuncular stories was about a boy digging in a pile of horseshit who said that with all this horseshit around, there must be a pony in there somewhere.)

Beinhart's point is a great one which Democrats ought to pick up on. After all the time and money and shredding of one Constitutional right after another, what has Bush got to show?

In a great comment on Beinhart's piece, Roddy McCorley reminds us that comparing the "war on terror" to the World War II doesn't hold up very well for Bush:

"Tell us how you've located Osama bin Laden. It's been over four and a half years."

I'd like to offer a bit of historical contrast, if I may: It took us less than four years to smash the Nazi war machine and defeat the Empire of Japan, either of which presented a more formidable challenge than al Qaeda. Somehow we liberated Europe without creating a tenacious pro-Nazi insurgency. If we haven't found Osama yet, it's because somebody very high up does not want to.

Could the Democrats bring themselves to use a commonsense argument like this one? Every day the pile of horseshit gets higher and deeper.

[Editor's note: This is reprinted in its entirety. It was sent to me with a request to reprint is in order to disseminate it as far and wide as possible. Many thanks to Pat Lang, Larry Johnson, Barry McCaffrey, Booman Tribune and Joe Galloway.]

This is one of the most important things I have read in the blogosphere lately. It is original e-mails between Joe Galloway and Larry DiRita (with whom I have had some dealings myself, featured on this blog). I share Joe's feelings wholeheartedly. Please read and share.

From Larry Johnson, writing at Booman Tribune:

Pat Lang at Sic Semper Tyrannis has a terrific posting that features a recent exchange of emails between combat correspondent Joe Galloway and Larry Dirita, Rummy's press spokesman. As Pat notes, "Joe Galloway is the "Ernie Pyle" of my generation and one of the greatest friends the American soldier ever had. He is the reporter who went to LZ X-Ray in 1965 with the First Battalion, Seventh Cavalry Regiment. Yes. He is the reporter in the film "We Were Soldiers." Joe sent the exchange to General Barry McCaffrey in the following email:

----- Original Message ----- From: Jlgalloway2@xxxx.com To: b.r.mccaffrey@xxxxxxnet ; xxxxx Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:20 PM Subject: a little exchange of email

barry & jill: yesterday i had a lengthy exchange of messages with rummy's mouthpiece, larry darita, over my column last week about paul van riper and the rigged war game in 2002. thought you might find it of interest:

General Barry McCaffrey read the exchange and encouraged Joe to allow it to be disseminated far and wide:

Subj: Re: a little exchange of email Date: 5/4/2006 10:50:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time From: b.r.mccaffrey@xxxxxxx.net To: Jlgalloway2@xxxxx.com

Joe,

This is the most powerful stuff hands down I have ever read about this war. You need to put the grammar right with capitals, etc and the PUBLISH IT ON LINE IMMEDIATELY JUST AS IS...BOTH SIDES.

This exchange ought to be your going away gift to the capital. Thanks for your ferocious protection of our soldiers and marines, thanks for your dedication to the truth, thanks for your enormous moral courage. Barry

Joe Galloway got the ball rolling with his newspaper column taking Rumsfeld to task for ignoring the war game lose inflicted on his planner by retired Lt. General Paul Van Riper. It appeared on Wed, Apr. 26, 2006:

Commentary

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - Of those generals who have stepped forward to criticize Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and his conduct of the Iraq War, none has pointed out the mistakes of a man who admits no error with more specificity than retired Marine Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper.

The e-mail exchanges begin here:

From: Di Rita, Larry, CIV, OSD [mailto:larry.dirita@osd.mil] Sent: Friday, April 28, 2006 6:58 AM To: Galloway, Joe Subject:

Your column about gen van riper is just silly, joe. To tag the secretary of defense with being responsible for every sparrow that falls out of every tree is just ludicrous.

General Kernan, who was commander of the Joint Forces Command when van riper's wargame occurred, had very pointed things to say about van riper when van riper made his first notoriety on this whole thing.

To tag rumsfeld with a wargame when there were about three or four layers of the chain of command between rumsfeld and the wargamers just misunderstands the way the world works.

Let's at least be honest about this: there is a lot of change taking place, and that change forces people to re-examine the way we have always done things. That is bumpy, and that can make people anxious.

I don't have any idea what might have happened in van riper's experience with this wargame, but to blame the secretary of defense for it just sounds crazy.

You talk about "rumsfeld's fondest ideas and theories" as if you have the first clue as to what those are. I have worked with him side-by-side for five years, and I wouldn't even try to divine what his fondest ideas and theories are.

The debate about defense transformation was going on long before rumsfeld showed up at the pentagon. I'd wager that the war game van riper was so offended by probably began in planning before rumsfeld showed up.

Van riper has never even met the secretary to my knowledge. For him to make such sweeping comments as he did in your piece is just irresponsible.

As a journalist, don't you think you owe it to your readers to challenge when people say things like that as though they have firsthand knowledge. Also, you ought to talk with Buck Kernan, who commanded JFCOM at the time.

You're just becoming a johnny one-note and it's only a couple of steps from that to curmudgeon!!

Best....

From galloway in response to DaRita No. 1:

larry: i am delighted that folks over in OSD continue to read my columns with great attention. Who knows, it might make a difference one day.

i've always understood that the guy in charge takes the fall for everything that goes wrong on his watch. this is why the u.s. navy court martials the captain of any ship that is involved in an accident or is sunk for whatever reason. this is why a President, Harry Truman, always kept a sign on his desk in the oval office that said simply: The Buck Stops Here. trouble with this administration is the buck never stops anywhere, on anybody's desk. "victory has many fathers; defeat is an orphan" --Count Ciano, Mussolini's son-in-law in 1945

Last I knew Mr. Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense. His is the ultimate responsibility. And I am damned if I can understand how you could work for the man for as long as you have without knowing what he likes and doesn't like in the way of strategy and tactics and fighting wars. In the meantime, I hope you will take note of the fact that throughout the discussion of this and other columns with you I have never once implied that you were "silly" or "crazy" or "ludicrous" or even a "johnny one-note." I will be leaving this town in three weeks, Larry, and there's a lot of people and places I will miss. You aren't exactly at the top of that list..
Joe Galloway

Russ Feingold spoke in Seattle today on behalf of a local candidate. This is a "mixed bag" community when it comes to politics, so the pre-speech eavesdropping and conversations proved to be interesting.

Before the speeches, I noticed Bill Moyer of the Backbone Campaign heading out the door with a large gold backbone! (The Backbone Campaign is a grassroots effort to embolden citizens and elected officials to stand up for progressive values.) I followed him outside and he told me they had been relegated to the area near the chain link fence ("like at the convention," he said, probably because the Backbone Campaign also give "Spineless Awards").

Luckily it was the route Feingold would use to come into the school building where the event was held. It appeared that he really appreciated his Backbone and he certainly deserves it. He opposed the Patriot Act, opposed the Iraq War, and proposed censure of Bush, before any of these positions were politically trendy or safe.

I learned also that Feingold once won by 31 votes (in an even closer election than our governor, who won by 126 votes). I learned that Feingold was once endorsed by Elvis Presley. He has not taken "soft money" and has spearheaded Campaign Finance Reform. He holds the seat of Senator Gaylor Nelson, who started Earth Day.

From local speakers, I learned more about my community and how to next take a direction. There is the possibility of burning shoe leather in more "purple" or "red" districts. We have those running who came from the grassroots, who left careers to help steer the country back in the right direction.

The quote of the day:

"Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves and can not under God retain it."
Abraham Lincoln

(Elizabeth, voting rights activist, Seattle)

(EDITOR'S NOTE: We are, of course, elevating Tut's comments from the previous thread header, to thread header status. This brings the total of times this has been posted to three--on this website anyway. We also would like to share her post with other blogs. We believe she has a voice and something to say that needs to be heard. We hope that 5-10 times posted may be enough to get through to folks.)

I voted the other day. Voted again, in a precinct with over 500 registered voters, and I was number 87 at four in the afternoon. Voted, and came away discouraged because hundreds of my neighbors did not. They were busy, or it was raining, or they didn't know or like anyone on the ballot. It's enough to make me weep in frustration and outrage, and to imagine with bitterness what silence and apathy is going to do to all of us.

You can't move a certain segment of people. If they never registered and never voted, they probably won't, even now, and when they are agog at their freedoms being taken away, they will be shocked, but it won't ever occur to them that they should have voted when they had the chance. And, if they are registered, and they only vote in the 'big' elections, they will still feel like they did their duty.

I'm past, over and done with blaming the media, and the punditocracy, and the talking heads, and the pollsters, and yes, even the politicians themselves over how bad things are. Whomever they have sought to reach or stir up has been reached or thoroughly stirred. Rabid right or angry left, it's all the same, all the time, every day.

Everyone is dissatisfied somewhere along the line. I feel bad for the rabid right sometimes, because I think they might be realizing their ideals aren't working out quite so well with the people they put their faith in. Something isn't clicking and ticking along the way they planned with their big majority in place, and they don't seem to be able to figure out why. If they voted 'R' with their religion on their sleeve, and they now feel like their religion was used, that's a hard pill to swallow. If they went 'R' to increase their wealth, well, how come they are paying more while making less, but all those big biz 'R's' that promised them they were going to get wealthy too - well, it hasn't worked out? Golly, that has to hurt. And, if they were part of the safety, war-winning, WMD believers, geez, that didn't pan out either.

From AP:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Senate committee approved a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage Thursday, after a shouting match that ended when one Democrat strode out and the Republican chairman bid him "good riddance."

"I don't need to be lectured by you. You are no more a protector of the Constitution than am I," Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) shouted after Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) declared his opposition to the amendment, his affinity for the Constitution and his intention to leave the meeting.

"If you want to leave, good riddance," Specter finished.

"I've enjoyed your lecture, too, Mr. Chairman," replied Feingold, who is considering a run for president in 2008. "See ya."

Well, I think the real debate in the above passage is whether Arlen Spector is ANY sort of protector of the Constitution, let alone as good as Feingold.

But here's a clue, Arlen: Foregoing endless opportunities to stop bigotry against homosexuals does not make you a defender of the Constitution. Foregoing endless opportunities to shutdown NSA activities that are clearly in violation of Congressionally-enacted statues, does not make you a defender of the Constitution. Raising a judge to the highest court in the land for a lifetime appointment, when said judge has clearly lied to Congress does not make you a defender of the Constitution.

You know what makes someone a defender of the Constitution? Actually standing up and defending the Constitution. For example: Walking out and refusing to participate in a group that would promulgate bigotry for the sake of giving bigotry a "full debate in the Senate". Taking a stand against those who say (yeah, I'm looking at you, Arlen, and you too, Pat Roberts) they defend the Constitution, and then turn Article I of the Constitution into nothing more than a dog and pony show. Voting against election year legislation that panders to homophobes and bigots. These are things that make you a defender of the Constitution.

Defending the Constitution is more than lip service. It require real public service. It requires action, and sometimes those actions require courage.

When it comes to action and courage necessary for defending the Constitution, the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Arlen Spector, is no Russ Feingold.

And that's a damn shame.

Today in front of the White House, we have soothing rain, bright sun, rainbows, and heart-filled spirits, or spirit-filled hearts, or filled spirit-hearts...

You get the picture. In case you don't:

My son and I have argued over time about the potential influence of political blogs, ie. whether they constitute "netroots" or "nutroots". His fairly traditional coursework taught him that the left cancels out the right in the grassroots and the numbers of the liberal blogosphere were not significant enough to make much difference.

Recently, as he nears graduation, his position is beginning to shift as the influence of blogs continues to grow as political science professors and political candidates watch with fascination. I gave him Joe Trippi's book about the internet. It turned out to be the text for one of his classes. I think he's almost ready to admit that mother knows best.

Recently Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos was in Seattle to promote his book Crashing the Gate: Netroots, Grassroots and the Rise of People-Powered Politics, with Jerome Armstrong of MyDD, who coined the term "netroots". I wrote about it here the next day, and he referenced the article in a diary on his blog. This morning I read a very interesting article in one of our local papers called "Political Bloggers Step in to Rally the Troops: Sites create buzz, raise funds for candidates."

It relates how one of our local congressional candidates is a former blogger who decided to run for office in a Republican district, against a popular Sheriff who was instrumental in catching the Green River Killer. Bloggers helped her raise enough to qualify for inclusion in the national "red to blue" program, which qualifies her for additional aid. "If that's not a sign of the growing power and influence of the local blogs, I'm not sure what is," Markos Zuniga wrote online.

Good political writing occurs in many places; here is one item we wanted to share with the DCP readers.

Nancy Greggs, a member of the Democratic Underground blog, wrote this very poignant & profound open letter to Republican representatives in Congress. With her permission, we have provided it here in its entirety.

Nancy has also given open permission for her letter to be widely distributed to other blogs, newspaper editorial boards, representatives in Congress, etc. She only asks that we give her attribution as the author and a plug for Democratic Underground (when possible) as the original publisher.

Some of you may remember Gilda, the woman who spoke out at the vigil we ran for CIndy Sheehan last August. Her speech is located here. She is also the woman who came to the vigil where Cindy was arrested, and who was so deeply upset about the freepers yelling at Cindy and all of us that she had to leave.

Comment I wrote at that time:

Gilda is the woman I ran into tonight who was standing in front of one of the vilest people I have ever run into. She was shrieking at Gilda about her son, who was killed in Iraq, but she is OK about it because he volunteered and knew what he was getting into.

Nothing wrong with believing your son died for a good cause, but she was yelling at Gilda for grieving for her own son.

Gilda had moved away from her, and was starting to tear up, so I put my arms around her and told her that the woman was not worth listening to.

She began to sob, and she said, "There are so many more like her out there." I pointed across the street, at the good people lying on the sidewalk, many of them intending to be arrrested for the truth. I hoped to get her to see that there are many of us working hard every day to bring our children home, many more than there are people who feel compelled to scream at people at a peaceful protest.

She shook her head, I stepped away for a minute and she was gone.

So to all you good people, let's make sure that Gilda's pain is not replicated over and over. Leave her a message on that thread in the forum, or here, and show her how many of us do care, and are doing whatever we can.

Posted by: Karen at October 26, 2005 10:38 PM

Well, her son Alex was critically injured in a convoy expolsion in Iraq and he died May 10.

Fulvio (his father) has set up a blog and you can send them our regret, anger, concern, and love.

I will add only the last paragraph of Gilda's words in front of the White House last August:

“'We would send the wrong signal if we pulled out?' you say, Mr. Bush. What signal do you think we’ve sent to the world since we invaded Iraq? You’ve destroyed our credibility and our good standing in the world. Most of all, Mr. Bush, what’s unforgivable, is that you betrayed our idealistic American sons and daughters who trustingly placed their lives in your hands. We, their mothers, will not let you ‘move on with your life’, Mr. Bush. We hold you accountable for their deaths and injuries. And we call now for an immediate withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. Now, not next year, not in 10 years! Go meet with Cindy, Mr. Bush!"

From ABC's Brian Ross yesterday:

A senior federal law enforcement official tells ABC News the government is tracking the phone numbers we (Brian Ross and Richard Esposito) call in an effort to root out confidential sources.

"It's time for you to get some new cell phones, quick," the source told us in an in-person conversation.

ABC News does not know how the government determined who we are calling, or whether our phone records were provided to the government as part of the recently-disclosed NSA collection of domestic phone calls.

Other sources have told us that phone calls and contacts by reporters for ABC News, along with the New York Times and the Washington Post, are being examined as part of a widespread CIA leak investigation.

Now, if the tracking of reporters phone call as part of a leak investigation were all this were limited to, it may be justifiable, but I seriously doubt that's what we're talking about.

I believe what we're talking about is the government using National Security Letters provision of the Patriot Act to tap the phones of anyone it thinks may be thinking about doing a story on leaked information some time in the future. Or whatever.

This is a continuing part of the story where in the Bush Administration declares war on the Rule Of Law. It's just one more way of saying "The Constitution begins with Article II and ends there, and all of crap about Congress and the Courts is just a bunch of typos".

As I said, I was waiting to see what the reactions of reporters would be to this development.

Uh, I'm still waiting. I was pretty surprised last night on "Hardball" when Matthews declined to ask either Michael Isikoff or (more especially) Eric Lichtblau about this story. Nada.

I was expecting to see one of the major newspapers write an editorial brimming with outrage and defense of the First Amendment, but nada.

Is it really such a leap to think that this government, which has now gained infamy for it's many law-breaking activites, would go just one step further and use this information to spy on political opponents, or anyone at all it sees to be a threat to their agenda?

Isn't it time reporter start asking those questions, if not for our sakes, for their own? What will it take to motivate the press corpse to do their jobs if not the threat of the government illegally spying on you in an attempt to send you to jail?

Once again, we are left asking, "Where's the outrage?"

President Bush will speak to the nation tonight in yet another not-really-ready-for-prime-time attempt to repair his hopelessly damaged Presidency.

Josh Marshall wrote a comment on the highly public pandering involved in the President's desire to send the National Guard on border patrol:

But am I wrong to think that the president simply couldn't square the circle between the corporate cheap-labor forces who fund his campaigns and the cultural conservatives who supply his voters? Growing out of that failure, this 'militarize the border' hokum is the policy announcement equalivent of crawling under his desk and screaming "Help!"

Nail meets head.

And Josh also tells us that the White House is now saying that this plan to militarize the border is only temporary.

Riiiggghhht. Tell that to the troops who are doing their third tour of duty in Iraq.

The problems of border security in the United States are serious, and politically expedient solutions are dangerous to our national security. We need real solutions, not election theater that use our troops to try to get Republicans elected.

It's not just a stupid idea. It's a shameless one as well.

Photo by Sam Utne / Spectral Q
The aerial image was designed by John Quigley and organized by CODEPINK: Women for Peace, hundreds of mothers, grandmothers and their families send a Mother's Day message to the White House: Mom says NO WAR.

(That's my body; on the right side of the "y" in "says"; Dick is the bottom of the "s" in that word, and Larry is the very end of the "r" in "WAR"! But you could all tell that, right?)

Rev. Yearwood talks about the links between Katrina and Iraq. His message: we have to conquer racism first.

Dahlia Wafsi shares what it is like in Basra when rockets are flying by you--from the British headquarters

Andy Shallal fed everyone--amazing job!

Everyone in front of the White House just an hour ago.

Iraq War Veterans Speak Out

Can you find Dharma's Mom in this photo?

Medea Benjamin leads us in a rousing "I Ain't Gonna Study War No More"

An almost full moon rises over the heart-filled circle in front of the White House.

We will be going back soon. It's remarkable. Hope these photos help you touch this moment.

GETTING READY

THE DRESS SAYS IT ALL

JILL SOBULE? WARMING UP

JODIE, MEDEA, AND GAEL GET IT GOING

This past week has been multi-focused but one recurring theme keeps coming up: the role of the arts in education. So for today's lesson:

The Good News:

Under No Child Left Behind, the arts are considered core curriculum, and therefore, every child's right.

OK, that's it for the Good News.

Despite new unpackings of research that indicate the arts have benefits that are both instrumental to general learning and intrinsically satisfying, the struggle to provide funding at the federal, state, and local levels for adequate programs continues. Once again, the Bush Administration left out the measly 36 million dollars for Arts Education in the US Department of Education funding.

(sigh).

I did attend a hopeful, optimistic, inspiring event in Baltimore City on Tuesday. The program announced will support the development of arts education programs in every middle school in the city. A good start for a long-troubled system, and the eloquent evidence for success came in the form of a successful jazz musician's testimonial about the power of a caring teacher and programs that changed his life. Rep. Elijah Cummings also spoke of a drawing he has in his house by Baltimore City students, a large piece that says "FREEDOM" at the bottom. He thinks that word reflects the unlocking of the spirit that happens when students create new things and find their voices.

But I could not help but wonder whether or not the Ford Foundation, which funded this project, has the stomach for sticking through the challenges such a program will bring, as the pressure from NCLB bumps up against the needs of arts programs for air and light and time. Will the arts be shoe-horned into the planning periods of the "real" teachers? Will teaching artists become relief workers for stressed-out and disenfranchised classroom educators?

As an arts educator, I believe we know what works. What do I mean by "works"? I mean that students are engaged and inspired constructors of products that reflect their deep learning and growth towards individuality and responsible community involvement.

Interestingly, what works does not require much money, because what works is this:

An active teacher willing to move around the room as needed, prodding, encouraging, relating with students and creating a vibrant environment in which everyone, including the teacher, enquires and discovers and makes new things.

A pacing and accomodation that suits each child while encouraging the whole class to move forward.

Time.

Space.

Materials.

Standardized tests, Adequate Yearly Progress Reports, School Choice, Scientifically-Based Research, Safe and Drug-Free Schools, High Stakes Assessment--none of these goals make the difference we hope for in our children's lives: Education that nourishes, engages, and empowers children to unlock their uniqueness and place in the world.

But put a paintbrush in their hands, turn on the music, read a poem, dance with them, let them create a new world, and then watch what happens.

Think that we are done with the illegal spying stories of the Bush Administration? Think again.

From Think Progress:

CongressDaily reports that former NSA staffer Russell Tice will testify to the Senate Armed Services Committee next week that not only do employees at the agency believe the activities they are being asked to perform are unlawful, but that what has been disclosed so far is only the tip of the iceberg. Tice will tell Congress that former NSA head Gen. Michael Hayden, Bush’s nominee to be the next CIA director, oversaw more illegal activity that has yet to be disclosed:

A former intelligence officer for the National Security Agency said Thursday he plans to tell Senate staffers next week that unlawful activity occurred at the agency under the supervision of Gen. Michael Hayden beyond what has been publicly reported, while hinting that it might have involved the illegal use of space-based satellites and systems to spy on U.S. citizens. …

[Tice] said he plans to tell the committee staffers the NSA conducted illegal and unconstitutional surveillance of U.S. citizens while he was there with the knowledge of Hayden. … “I think the people I talk to next week are going to be shocked when I tell them what I have to tell them. It’s pretty hard to believe,” Tice said. “I hope that they’ll clean up the abuses and have some oversight into these programs, which doesn’t exist right now.” …

Tice said his information is different from the Terrorist Surveillance Program that Bush acknowledged in December and from news accounts this week that the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of millions of Americans. “It’s an angle that you haven’t heard about yet,” he said. … He would not discuss with a reporter the details of his allegations, saying doing so would compromise classified information and put him at risk of going to jail. He said he “will not confirm or deny” if his allegations involve the illegal use of space systems and satellites.

As commenter Ira pointed out yesterday, it's both hard to believe and sad to note that when all is said and done, the Bush Administration, will make the Nixon Administration look like amateur hour.

CNN is reporting that newly resigned number three officer at the CIA, Kyle "Dusty" Foggo's home and office are being searched by law enforcement officials from the FBI.

Foggo was personally selected for the position the spy agency by Porter Goss, the former Director of the CIA who abruptly resigned from that position last week under mysterious circumstances.

The probe of MZM contracts and criminal activity in official Washington DC widens.

Who's next?

29.

President Bush’s job-approval rating has fallen to its lowest mark of his presidency, according to a new Harris Interactive poll. Of 1,003 U.S. adults surveyed in a telephone poll, 29% think Mr. Bush is doing an “excellent or pretty good” job as president, down from 35% in April and significantly lower than 43% in January.

Any guesses for how low he will go in the job approval ratings limbo?

(Hattip to my husband for waking me up with this news before leaving for work. He also pointed out that this information was not included in the print edition of this morning's WSJ.)

There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live -- did live, from habit that became instinct -- in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.

George Orwell, 1984 (1948)

Just in case there was anyone out there left who thought that there was any personal privacy remaining, this ought to put that fantasy to rest:

The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

B-b-but, but, but I thought they were only spying on people talking to Al Qaeda? You mean they are keeping records of every phone call we make without a court order?

Yes, Virginia, they are. First they spy. Then they lie. The Fourth Amendment?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's in the shredder.

If I were on the Intelligence Committee, I would raise hell until I got a list of people who have access to this information, and people who have accessed this information in the past.

Here's the list of the members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees. Feel free to give them a phone call to voice your concern over this illegal program.

Here's what I will be asking when I call:

I understand that the NSA is amassing the largest database of phone records in history, and those phone records are of ordinary citizens, most of whom have no ties to terrorists, could you tell me what the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution says? And how is this program legal under the Fourth Amendment? And what does Member/Senator X plan to do about it? How do I find out if my phone records have been illegally appropriated?

What will you be asking?

In any parliamentary democracy, George Bush would already be long gone. Defenders of the American system like to point out that having a fixed four-year term for the president guarantees us more stability than countries like Italy. But if stability is based on stupidity, or worse, then the "vote of no confidence" test in parliamentary systems begins to look more interesting.

If the Democrats in the Senate had even a smidgen of courage, they would invent an American version of a vote of no confidence in the Bush regime. Here we have an administration which only one-third of the country now supports, but Bush continues onward as if he were entitled to govern no matter how many people reject him.

It's Tuesday morning, and I am swamped with the sheer number of criminal stories there are about our members of government and thier cronies.

On the list of those identified as Representative/Person A are Bob Ney, Karl Rove, and William Jefferson.

Then we have the ongoing spectacle of Katherine Harris, who received $4000 in campaign contributions from MZM buddies, and will soon be wearing the "Hi, my name is Representative A" nametag as part of the MZM probe, and there's Dusty Foggo.

Leading the Republican Culture of Corruption, there's former house Majority Leader Tom DeLay, under indictment, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, under SEC investigation for insider trading, and soon to be under investigation for his dealings with Big Pharma. And they are led by a President who doesn't view his actions as criminal because he holds himself above the law.

Nice.

It's crooks, cronies and a dictator. Which ones are you talking about today?

Post your thoughts and stories on this subject here, and let's discuss it.

Editor's Note: Bumped to the top from this morning.

Patrick Kennedy is not the only one who needs a twelve-step program. Could our country be any more addicted than it is to oil?

At least, Patrick Kennedy has gotten past the first step of his program: 1. We admitted we were powerless over drugs; that our lives had become unmanageable.

Our country is still struggling to admit that it even has a problem, that there really might be some limit out there on how much oil we can consume. In Europe, people have long recognized that restraining consumption of gasoline was a good idea. Europeans pay high taxes on gasoline, which limits both consumption and environmental damage. But faced with rising prices in the U.S., prices well below those in Europe, Democrats AND Republicans have been promoting plans to decrease the price of gasoline and bring us back to the "good old days."

What is it about our cars that produces such an eroticized response? Take the Washington Post's car column today about a $90,000 car that will go zero-to-sixty in four seconds.

It {the car} ultimately will take from you more than it will give, but you become so addicted to what it offers that you can't resist. You are seduced, pulled in by the obnoxious roar of its engine...If you drive it with side windows raised, the entrapped cacophony of roaring engine, tympanic hardtop, and popping tailpipes will pummel your brains and pound your soul - va-va-vroom, boom, pop-pop!

Meanwhile, the New York Times reports today that Americans are heading out even beyond the exurbs. At the very time when the marketplace is doing what fundamentalist free marketeers say it should be doing, people are ignoring the market signal, adopting lifestyles that will make many of them even more dependent on oil.

If our country were a person, our friends would surely stage an intervention. Right now we are heading toward a very nasty crash with the geopolitical realities of oil production and consumption. U.S presidents since Richard Nixon have given lip service to preventing the coming collision. But the American people have blithely ignored these warnings, and no president has yet dared to take meaningful action.

Addicts are lucky to hit bottom before killing someone. But hitting bottom is usually a nasty wrenching experience. In dealing with our oil addiction, we still have time to act and avoid at least the worst effects of hitting our energy consumption bottom.

We could start by reclassifying SUVs and light trucks to require them to meet the same fuel efficiency standards as cars and we should immediately begin to raise those fuel efficiency standards.

At zoning boards and land use planning agencies, we should end the regulatory regime that allows or even encourages auto-centric development.

In our cities, we should be making aggressive improvements in the quality of public transit, and making it as safe as possible for people to use bicycles instead of cars.

This is not rocket science, and the list of additional improvements that we could make is a very long one. But in order to make the commitment to wean ourselves from our addiction to oil, we have to start by taking the first step: recognizing that our lives have become unmanageable.

(Dick Bell will be posting his thoughts on the environment and the current crises associated with it, under the category of The Hapless Toad. That title is taken from a case heard by now-Chief Justice John Roberts: In the case of the arroyo toad, for example, the developer argued that the species had no connection to any economic or interstate activity and had no commercial value, so its protection was unrelated to interstate commerce and thus unconstitutional.)

[UPDATE 10:00 AM, EST: Since this story was written earlier this morning, Bush has nominated Hayden to be Director of the CIA. Go figure.]

When my son is attempting the tall tale in defense of his latest behavior, or in advance set-up of one to come, my husband and I warn him that our "malarkey detector" is about to explode, going to Code Red, making all sorts of loud beeps and sounds.

Which brings me to the Republican "outcry" against Michael Hayden becoming the next director of the CIA. My malarkey detector is about to go to Code Red.

From the New York Times:

WASHINGTON, May 7 — Senior Republican lawmakers on Sunday criticized the probable choice of Gen. Michael V. Hayden to lead the Central Intelligence Agency, voicing concerns about his ties to a controversial eavesdropping program and about the wisdom of installing a military officer at the civilian spy agency.

In a possible preview of the difficulties that would await General Hayden on Capitol Hill, several Republicans, including some with close ties to the White House, said President Bush should find someone else to run the embattled agency.

"I do believe he is the wrong person, the wrong place, at the wrong time," Representative Peter Hoekstra, a Michigan Republican and chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, said on "Fox News Sunday."

"We should not have a military person leading a civilian agency at this time," Mr. Hoekstra said.

Several military officers have led the C.I.A., but Mr. Hoekstra said it would be wrong to install one when the agency was fending off efforts by the Pentagon to expand its own spying operations.

After spending the weekend hearing the media adopt the first Snow-job about Porter Goss' abrupt exit from the CIA, I can smell the next one coming.

Here's how it goes: First the Republicans say they are going to nominate person X. Then some high profile Republicans pretend to whine about X without actually saying they will oppose him. Then X goes to confirmation hearings and all Republicans unite and say, "Well, he answered all of my questions", and by answering questions, they mean, "He tied his tie right, didn't he?" Then all the Republicans vote to confirm and the Democrats get hoodwinked again by thinking that Republicans care about bipartisanship.

Charlie Brown and football, meet Lucy. Again.

Here's the most important part of the NY Times story:

None of the Republican or Democratic lawmakers who appeared on television on Sunday or who were interviewed separately said directly that they would vote against General Hayden's nomination.

Of course they didn't, and anyone who thinks that there's a snowball's chance in hell that Senator John Cornyn is going to vote against Michael Hayden, is seriously delusional.

Then there's this:

Mr. Hoekstra would not directly participate in a debate over General Hayden, because the Senate, not the House, is responsible for confirming the president's nominee.

So basically The NY Times is wrapping an entire story around a Republican who will never have to put the courage of his convictions on the line. Instead of the conversation being about Hayden's unfitness for the post due to the fact that he instituted and directed an illegal domestic spying operation at the NSA, the conversation is about whether or not the guy is in uniform.

The media as tool one more time.

Oh yeah, my malarkey alert is about to explode.

I don't know about you, but when I pass a bookstore and we're six weeks out from the official start of summer, my mind travels to what will best occupy me while lounging by the pool, flopped down in the hammock after weeding between the bulbs, or just generally lazing with a layer of SPF 30 at a cafe, at the beach or just by the water in general. I asked our DCP blog contributors to give us some recommendations on good summer reads. Here we go with a good start-up.

FROM SUZ KRUEGER
"Chasing Ghosts; A Soldier's Fight for America from Baghdad to Washington" by Paul Rieckhoff
The reviews for "Chasing Ghosts" are as passionate varied as the author's writing. Paul Rieckhoff is an Iraq II war veteran and Founder of Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans for America (IAVA), who recounts his experience of recruitment, duty and post-duty observations and activism against the Iraq war. Anticipate a searing account of the war, and invective against the politicians who initiated it. We need all perspectives to continue to bring to light the story of how we prosecute and sell America this war. There is none better than a soldier who for whatever reason volunteered, fought and now speaks out. Paul Rieckhoff was recently on The Colbert Report and interviewed last week by NPR's "Fresh Air"(check the NPR website for the "Fresh Air" broadcast.

FROM DICK BELL
"Democratic Promise: The Populist Moment in America," By Lawrence Goodwyn
Goodwyn shows that almost everything Americans have been taught since the 1930s about populism was written by people who hated populism, whose writings systematically buried the revolutionary challenge which populism posed to the triump of corporatism at the end of the 19th century. Through a brilliant exercise of historical detective work, Goodwyn restores the history that has disappeared. He writes that the omission of the activities of one of Populism's important wings "has had the effect of dropping the left wing out of a left wing movement and leaving the evolution of the People's Party [the political party that grew out of the movement] almost as a causeless happening--a mass insurgent movement achieved without organizational insurgents."

Goodwyn provides an almost day-by-day history of the sudden appearance of what came to be called Populism in Texas, its rapid spread across the midwest and into the South, the birth of the Populist Party, and the tragic failure of the movement and the party to beat back the corporate forces that have dominated our country ever since. There are many, many lessons to be learned from this wonderful book about the challenges of organizing political movements dedicated to a different set of economic relationships among people than the globalizing capitalism after the fall of the Soviet Union. If you were going to read only one book about politics this summer, read "The Populist Moment."

I RECOMMEND:
'C-Train and 13 Mexicans" by Jimmy Santiago Baca (poetry)
This is a slim book of poetry written by California poet Jimmy Baca, made memorable by his poem "13 Mexicans"--summarizing in verse the lives and souls of those whose future resides in our current consciousness. Some of the poems are harrowing and rough, but all strike a note of the longing, rage and most of all the heartbreaking need to belong to a country whose acceptance of Hispanic immigrants is, at its best, entirely conditional.

CASEY SUGGESTS THE FOLLOWING TWO:
"Crashing the Gate" by Jerome Armstrong and Markos Moulitsas Zuniga (non-fiction)
As net activists regardless of our stripe, candidate or party--we all owe Daily Kos and its crew its propers-so many of us are active because of each other, inspired by the passion and determination of the blogging community. Getting our Daily Fix of Kos. And relying on each other instead of media and political hacks to determine and fight for what our government does to and for us. The book is now a must-read for anyone interested in netroots, the Democratic party, the preservation of democracy, community-building and the politics of now and the future. How much more do we need to say other than get it and get with it.

"How Would A Patriot Act? Defending American Values from a President Run Amok" by Glenn Greenwald
Glenn Greenwald is a Constitution lawyer who first supported the Administration's foreign policy after 9-11. His disenchantment and ultimately his apprehension of the Administration's policies followed shortly after the discovery that the NSA was conducting a domestic spying program on American civilians. Mr. Greenwald forwards arguments that should make for decent ammo in the ongoing fight for our civil liberties against an Administration that seems to not want to be bothered with the rule of law. If you want to know how valuable and how potent Mr. Greenwald's book is, check out the wingnut comments on the Amazon.com blog which already decry it--ten days before it would hit the bookshelves. Do we have a winner here, Ms. Morris?

And if YOU have a book to add to this list, share it with us and BLOG ON...

(Dick felt that my two comments from the last thread would make a good piece for Sunday morning conversation, so here they are. This is in response to the many discussions going on here and at other blogs about Patrick Kennedy, Ambien, addiction and politicians.)

From my own understanding of both addiction and recovery, every addict who has been through serious treatment recognizes that he/she cannot take any mood-altering medication. Most I know will not even take aspirin. So it's not a question of Ambien, or Phenergan, or whether or not all possible side effects are known. It's a question of personal responsibility and whether or not you call a doctor who will prescribe something vs. working your program and calling your sponsor.

Far be it from me to read Patrick his inventory on this; he is doing what he should and getting back into his program. He owned his behavior. I wish Rush could be so far along. But people are where they are with addiction and recovery, and all we can do is offer our support and understanding and get out of their way.

When addiction rears its ugly head in the public sector, I believe it is our job, as community, to offer support for recovery, and not judge them. I believe the consequences of their actions should be allowed to ensue, unless that involves putting others in danger, for either good or ill.

And mostly, I believe in the twelve steps and the serenity prayer, especially the parts about the wisdom to know the differences between those things I can change (myself) and those I cannot (others).

Every time I forget that, the universe kicks me hard in the head and I remember that I am not in charge. Patrick got his kick the other day too. Let's let him engage with his own program and see what the results are before we decide for him.

BTW, I have no idea if Patrick Kennedy agrees with me about the twelve steps and the serenity prayer, but I do know that GWB decided he only needed forgiveness from Jesus in order to quit using. The twelve step program is hard work and takes a lot of reflective thinking and ownership of choices and consequences; something there is little evidence of in the behavior of his administration.

For myself, I would rather elect leaders who have walked through fire and met the Buddha on the road, and who have some deeper humility and self-knowledge, than the bunch of self-important irresponsible adolescents we have now. (Sorry Kos5678, I guess I do call people names sometimes!)

I think that self-aware people who own their behavior and who have made amends to others will take better care of the planet and its inhabitants than those who have trashed it and refused to pick up after themselves.

A number of people have written to me to tell their story of Ambien, and I hope that people will be kind enough to share their experiences on this thread in an effort to get more information about this medication out.

I'll go first. This is my experience with Ambien.

Not too long after my parents died, I was having some trouble sleeping. My doctor prescribed Ambien. I was also on an anti-spasm (not a muscle relaxer, and anti-spasm) medication for a problem arising from arthritis in my neck. Same doctor. I asked about drug interaction. None listed. Okay, well, I am not exactly a trusting soul, so I called the pharmacy and spoke to the pharmacist who had helped me get my terminally ill mother adequate pain medication before she died (the OTHER side of the problem with prescription drugs in America). Again, no known interaction.

At about two o'clock in the morning, I woke up out of a sound sleep, got some cheese tortellini from the freezer, put it in a dish and put it in the oven and turned the broiler on high.

Fortunately, my husband heard me get up and came downstairs in time just as the tortillini was beginning to burn and smoke. Thank God. I could have burned down the house, killing us all.

And here's the other thing that was really scary: I have NO recollection of it whatsoever. My doctor didn't warn me of any drug interactions, because only now is the word starting to get out. This is happening all over. And amnesia is FAR from unheard of when it comes to Ambien behavior.

Frankly, what happened to Congressman Kennedy makes PERFECT sense to me.

In my opinion, this medication should be pulled from the marketplace, or at the very least, carrying a stronger warning and fuller disclosure of its reported side effects. But that my lay opinion. I would be interested to hear what Oncall and Zennurse and other medical or medical related professioals have to say about their experiences.

I also want this to be an open thread to discuss people experiences with Ambien, articles on it, the coverage of Congressman Kennedy's car accident, his subsequent entrance into rehab, and perhaps even the whole damn problem with Big Pharma in America.

Thread away.

As a child growing up in the 1950s in southern Virginia, I knew that there was something special about New York City. My best friend's parents grew up in New York, and their house had an air of mystery and intellectual excitement which I attributed to their exotic lives in New York before they moved south.

Then there's that Beacon of Liberty stuff. The Statue of Liberty is always inspirational, but the whole city is a beacon of liberty for America and the world. It's no wonder that mention of the city strikes fear in the hearts of people who distrust the chaos of democracy in American's most small-d democratic city.

In his always useful column about civil liberties, Village Voice columnist Nat Hentoff hails New York for doing the best job in the country at teaching kids the American history they need to know to become defenders of freedom.

Writing about the American history materials available on the NYC Department of Education's Social Studies website, Hentoff says:

“I doubt—and wait to be corrected—that any other public school system in the country provides students with as wide-ranging an arsenal of knowledge to fulfill the foresight of Thomas Jefferson: "Our liberty can never be safe but in the hands of the people themselves."

What are kids in your city learning? The popularity of Howard Zinn's Peoples' History of the United States is an unfortunate tribute to the poor job most schools do in imparting the history we need to know to be activists. I don't remember learning about any of the material in Zinn's book in my long-ago civics classes.

If you want to help your kids (or yourself) understand the promise of the Constitution and the threats to our liberties we face today, Hentoff gives a rave review to Linda Monk's The Words We Live By: Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution (Hyperion):

“...nothing equals the clarity of the writing and exciting research in this illustrated (photographs, prints, original documents) adventure of who we are—and how to stay a free people.”

Having already filled every square inch of bookshelf space in my house, I've cut back on my book-buying. But with a recommendation like this one, I can feel my “no more books for a while” resolve slipping away. My wife will kill me.