Rummy to stay, what can I say?

Well if truth be told, I'm speechless. Fortunately Steve Soto:

It looks like the only holdover in the entire cabinet will be the one man who insulted allies, condoned war crimes, and embarked on a war with too few troops and logistical support to win the peace.

So no moderates will be in the room when Bush, Cheney, Rummy, Rice, Wolfowitz, and Hadley plan their next adventure. And this also means that Douglas Feith and Stephen Cambone will stick around also.

A room full of imperialists and neocons, and not one diplomatic or multilateral thought amongst them.

and Bull Moose:

Despite the mass exodus, the incompetent one remains -Rummy. All that happened on his watch was an abysmal post-war plan and a prison scandal. This confirms that the only ones held accountable in this Administration are welfare mothers and struggling third grade students. For them, standards and accountability apply. For Rumsfeld, he is just passed along to the next grade (or term) regardless of his performance.

are not speechless so I'll let them do the talking for me.

When Global Warming Makes it Cold

I try to avoid cross posting but this is a subject that is as important as any and dear to my heart. I have a post over at MEJ on the dangers of Rapid Climate Change. I would suggest that you check out the the links on the DOD report and the technical paper from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. The time for denial has passed.

Thanks, Tommy

Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson said today as he resigned from Bush's cabinet, "For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply because it is so easy to do. We are importing a lot of food from the Middle East, and it would be easy to tamper with that."

Um, thanks, Tommy. Appreciate you giving the entire world the heads-up on that one.

*tap tap tap* Is this thing on? Sib-eh-lants, sib-eh-lants ...

Well, it has been a few days since Jazz introduced me as a new guest blogger, and yet I haven't written anything. I suppose this is because I'm actually, well, intimidated by the level of commentary on this blog, and its audience. I read a lot of political commentary every day, and before, I had my little unknown drop in the bucket and del.icio.us linklog, which I could pretend (and be fairly sure that) no one read. But this thing has a concrete, defined audience, and if I write something here, it's going to be heard, and judged. That's actually a little bit intimidating, especially when I'm in fairly august company. (I've really been impressed by Tami, Ron, Jazz, and the others. Especially Jazz. Who knew he had it in him?)

At the moment, I don't have any majorly cohesive theme I'd like to bring to people's attention, because I'd rather not just parrot what is already going around the blogosphere. I suppose that harkens back to Usenet conventions, where a "me too" post was looked down upon as a waste of space.

One thing that has been on my mind recently, though, is a little known director named Errol Morris ... and how, if the Kerry campaign had actually listened, he could have helped win an election and swing a nation's course.

Do you remember the Apple commercials, where you'd hear this cute little jazzy music and you'd see someone talking right into the camera about why they wanted to join the Cult of Mac? That's Errol Morris, and Errol got the Kerry bug and filmed a number of campaign commercials using the same technique. (Minus the slowed-down plunky carousel music.)

Listen to a Marine tell America, "We will do whatever it takes to protect this country because we love it so much. But with that comes the obligation to the government of 'don't abuse it'. Don't make what we do a waste." Listen to a soccer mom prototype explain, "When I go anywhere and I see a package sitting on the ground or something, now I'm worried. Why? Because George Bush has really ticked everyone off." Listen to a Southern evangelist say, observing Bush, "I just don't see much evidence of a life devoted to Christ. I don't see truthfulness. I don't see compassion. I don't see a desire to take responsibility." Listen to a lifetime Republican say, "A friend and I were joking about making bumper stickers that said, 'I can't believe I miss Clinton.'"

And that's not even mentioning former U.S. Marine Kim Mecklenburg - by far my favorite among the "Kerry Switchers" - who, in one of her two spots, looked right at the camera and said, "I don't know a single soldier that has served in combat that would recklessly create another war."

These are powerful commercials of plain Americans talking to plain Americans that, in my opinion, could have helped swung the election. They are incredibly powerful. And let's not discount the simplicity: the average schmoe in Podunk is not going to be wondering whether Kerry is supposed to be the wolf, the cougar, the ostrich, the eagle, the three-toed sloth, or that cute little green-gray fungus on the side of the tree there. Most wonderfully, they were entirely devoid of the usual political doubletalk, and the simplicity would have gone a ways towards dissolving the negative effect of Kerry's supposed elitism. Yet Kerry's strategist, Bob Shrum, "passed on the ads without even looking at them." AGGGH! WHY?!?!

Because of this, MoveOn.Org only managed to air them three times (on Fox, of all places), and once in Ohio. The campaign that could have been ... the election that could have been ... the Presidency that could have been. *sigh*

Kerry evidently thinks he's welcome back for a 2008 run. After the way he munged up his campaign this time around, I have only one thing to say to the esteemed Senator.

"I don't want to talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough water! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!"

And on those words of wisdom, I bid y'all adieu.

P.S. Speaking of advertisements, never let it be said that Clear Channel doesn't like rubbing it in.

The American Taliban strike again!

How absurd can it get? Joe Gandelman brings us this example.

US distributors of the film Merchant of Venice, which premiered in London this week, have asked the director to cut out a background fresco by a Venetian old master so it is fit for American television viewers.

Like Joe, I'm really glad that someone is there protecting me against 16th century pornographers. I wouldn't want my kids seeing a naked Cupid, it might make it impossible for them to pay attention to the erectile dysfunction commercials.

More poetry

Objects are important.
Whatever happened to the golden ball after
the princess met her frog prince?
Was it stored on a pillow in the armory?
Or hidden in an attic by dust?
Or was each succeeding princess encouraged
to play by the lake with the ball?

(and yes, it's one of my own, written when I was ~20)

George Will takes on the Senate Republicans

The Left Coaster has a post on George Will's change of heart when it comes to changing Senate rules to make filibusters of judicial nominees impossible.

Evincing what historian Richard Hofstadter called "the ruthlessness of the pure in heart," Republicans might change Senate rules to make filibusters of judicial nominees impossible. Some Republican senators' hearts are about as pure as the driven slush after the treatment they dished out to some of President Clinton's judicial nominees.

So how does Will think conservatives should stand on this issue?

The filibuster is an important defense of minority rights enabling democratic government to measure and respect not merely numbers but also intensity in public controversies. Filibusters enable intense minorities to slow the governmental juggernaut. Conservatives, who do not think government is sufficiently inhibited, should cherish this blocking mechanism.

Brokaw is gone. so what!!!!!!

Tom Shales discusses Tom Brokaw's departure today and completely misses the point. He does get one thing right.

With Dan Rather, anchor of "The CBS Evening News," set to follow Brokaw out the door next spring, abdicating a job he once said was the most important at any network, the whole idea of the anchor as a network's top gun and flag-bearer is looking shaky and frail, and perhaps irrelevant. Jennings will be the only veteran in an anchor chair after Rather leaves, and instead of the earth shuddering at that prospect, there's a disheartening aura of "so what?"

The real point is that the era of the real TV anchor like Walter Cronkite ended years ago. Tom Brokaw didn't work for NBC he worked for General Electric, a company had everything to gain, in the short term at least, by insuring that the Imperial feudalists of the Bush administration remained in power. So in order to keep is seven million dollar a year job Brokaw had to become a reader of party propaganda for what amounts to the American version of Pravda.

Why I'm against the death penalty

I have three reasons why I am against the death penalty.

Now, I understand that there are 2 reasons that I can think of to be in favor of it- economics, first of all. The cost of housing, feeding, and care of one not fit for society is expensive. #2 Killing the bastard makes sure he can never do anything like that again. The commonly mentioned third reason: I frankly do not believe that the death penalty is a deterrent for any crime. I don't think anyone who would consider anything that would merit such a penalty is going to stop and think- "Wait, I can't do this, they may kill me for it."

My reasons:

1. Anyone pulling that switch, inserting the needle, etc, becomes a murderer. Taking a life is not supposed to be easy or morally correct in my view. I simply cannot morally justify it in my mind.
2. There is the chance of punishing the wrong guy. DNA testimony is doing amazing things in exonerating folks who have been punished for something they didn't do. I can but hope as science progresses we can do more to catch and prevent criminals too.

3. I believe that even the most hardened criminal can change. Even if they can never re-enter society, they can certainly learn to make something of what they have left to make the world better. No, it probably doesn't make up for the damage they have done. But, I am the eternal optimist. I do have hope.

Tolerance is too controversial

From Josh Marshall
The United Church of Christ was planning on running an ad in December where they stressed that they welcome everyone regardless of race or sexual orientation. It seems that being inclusive is too controversial and CBS and NBC will not run the ads. (you can view the ad here)The CBS explanation:

"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."

Josh points out how absurd this is after the last political campaign.

If this is really the case, we seem now to be in a country where political campaigns can be waged with flurries of ads replete with demonstrable falsehoods. And yet clear and tame political speech aimed at a pressing national debate isn't acceptable.

CBS's explanation seems to rest on the preposterous argument that because the ad addresses a major public debate that makes it "unacceptable".

Or is it just that discussing homosexuality is "unacceptable"?

If you ever wondered what is would be like to live in a right wing theocracy you don't have to go to Iran, just look around.

Note
I see this story is all over the blogosphere this morning, everywhere but MEJ that is since I can't seem to post there. This may be one of those times when blogs can have an impact.

Tom Brocaw is an idiot

Tom Brocaw is an idiot because he said this.

Outgoing NBC anchorman Tom Brokaw was asked on MSNBC's HARDBALL Monday if the Bush White House has been tough with the press corps, citing as an example of Dick Cheney stipulating no NEW YORK TIMES reporters on his trips.

Brokaw said, "I think they have been too tough.

"The idea that this White House has not given Tom Friedman a long, in-depth interview is astonishing to me. I have had a very good relationship with them, I have gotten to interview the President a lot. I have had access on the phone and other areas and I have been very vigorous in my discussions with them. But no reporter that I know covering national politics and the international policies that are of such great concern today know as much about them as Tom Friedman does and they have completely shut out the NEW YORK TIMES."

Excuse me, "But no reporter that I know covering national politics and the international policies that are of such great concern today know as much about them as Tom Friedman does and they have completely shut out the NEW YORK TIMES", are there two Tom Friedmans or have I missed something.

Doing my part

...to fill up Jazz's blog space. It comes to my attention that I'm not taking up enough space in Jazz's blog. OK, it came to my attention by Jazz saying so. Not very subtle. You want more stuff, Jazz? OK, but remember, you asked for it.

Why Banning Gun Ownership Would Be Anti-liberal

Over at Poetic Leanings, I was reading an entry about the second amendment, and I can't say that he's making a bad point, he's not. There are indeed gun-crazed morons hanging around,and terrorist who mean us harm, and they're a problem. And yes, having controls on the purchase of weapons is a good thing, but - but - every non-felon-citizen in this country should have the right to own one.

The second amendment specifically says:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Do you know why the people have the right to keep and bear arms? It was so that they could overthrow the government, if it got out of hand. Isn't that funny? People who designed the new government decided to tack on an amendment meant to handle the situation should that government ever go too far. In case we were suddenly restricted in our freedoms, if we found ourselves oppressed by something that we had gotten ourselves into, we're supposed to be able to get ourselves out of it, and we're supposed to be able to get ourselves out of it by force. They were revolutionaries, they staged a revolution. They lived under the thumb of a government that didn't allow them to do this kind of stuff, so they committed treason. We think of the founding fathers as all quaint and benevolent, but face it, there was an awful lot of shooting that had to go on in order for the USA to break away from Mother England.

So how does this add up to banning gun ownership as anti-liberal? Simple. Being able to influence the way our government works is our right as Americans. We vote, and we send representatives to make our laws, ostensibly in our name, based on what we, the people, actually want. We can call our Congressman and say "You're right, there ought to be a law!". And, we can make mistakes in the selection of our representatives as well. In the event that we, as a nation, somehow accidentally elect an entire governmental body of people who don't want to work for the greater good, well, we need to be able to stop them, if necessary, by force. By definition, a liberal is a person who favors the protection of civil liberties. Being able to own a gun is one of the liberties I feel it's my duty to protect.

The Thoughts of a "Real" Conservative

Paul Craig Roberts is a conservative. He was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. I have covered a couple of his commentaries over at MEJ recently and I think what he has to say is insightful and important. The two articles are:

• Virtuous Violence Is Upon Us

and


• Whatever Happened to Conservatives?

The left has been comparing the administration of George W. Bush to Hitler and the Nazis for some time but now in Whatever Happened to Conservatives? a conservative makes the analogy.

Today it is liberals, not conservatives, who endeavor to defend civil liberties from the state. Conservatives have been won around to the old liberal view that as long as government power is in their hands, there is no reason to fear it or to limit it. Thus, the Patriot Act, which permits government to suspend a person's civil liberty by calling him a terrorist with or without proof.
Thus, preemptive war, which permits the President to invade other countries based on unverified assertions.

There is nothing conservative about these positions. To label them conservative is to make the same error as labeling the 1930s German Brownshirts conservative.

American liberals called the Brownshirts "conservative," because the Brownshirts were obviously not liberal. They were ignorant, violent, delusional, and they worshipped a man of no known distinction. Brownshirts' delusions were protected by an emotional force field. Adulation of power and force prevented Brownshirts from recognizing implications for their country of their reckless doctrines.

Like Brownshirts, the new conservatives take personally any criticism of their leader and his policies. To be a critic is to be an enemy. I went overnight from being an object of conservative adulation to one of derision when I wrote that the US invasion of Iraq was a "strategic blunder."

I suggest you go to the above links and read both articles. What Paul Craig Roberts has to say rings true and describes the threat of the Bush theocons much better than anyone on the left has been able to do.

Marijuana and States Rights

The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a Medical Marijuana case from California that may have implications beyond legal pot. A New York Times commentary also deals with this issue. The issue is how much power does the Congress have to over ride state law.

The central issue is whether Congress had the constitutional power to criminalize the women's activities. When it passed the Controlled Substances Act, Congress relied on the commerce clause of the Constitution, which authorizes it "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states." In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a narrow view of what that authorizes Congress to do. It has ruled, in 5-to-4 decisions, that Congress did not have the power to pass the Gun-Free School Zones Act or a key part of the Violence Against Women Act.

As a progressive I have supported many of applications of the "commerce clause" by congress in the last 30 years but at the same time I have to question it's legitimacy. The California Medical Marijuana case is a case in point:

The marijuana in this case was far removed from interstate commerce, since it was raised in California for use within the state and was not sold commercially. The Justice Department has argued that allowing Californians to use medical marijuana "seriously undermines Congress's comprehensive scheme for the regulation of dangerous drugs." But when an individual treats herself with marijuana, under the sanction of state law and with a doctor's guidance, the impact on trafficking in dangerous drugs is close to nonexistent.

This ruling by the Supreme Court will have implications beyond the case itself as it could determine how much power the Congress has. Progressives have supported the broad use of the "commerce clause" in the past but considering the current climate in Washington we blue staters should probably have mixed feelings.

More on Charles Krauthammer's Iraq

Jazz took on Charles Krauthammer's vision if Iraq yesterday, today it's Juan Cole's turn.

Charles Krauthammer, after 18 months of blithe optimism on Iraq, has now suddenly decided that the country is embroiled in a Civil War and that the forthcoming elections will resemble those of 1864 in the United States, when the Confederate states did not vote for Lincoln.

As usual, Krauthammer is wrong. Historical analogies are always tricky, but this one is simply inaccurate. The problem is that Iraqis are not electing a president, even a war president. They are in effect electing a constitutional assembly. The main business of the new parliament is to craft a permanent constitution.

So, the analogy would be to 1789. What would the new American Republic's chances have been if the Southern states had not been able to send delegates to the constitutional convention, and so had been excluded from having an input into it? All sorts of compromises had to be hammered out in 1789, concerning southern slavery and how to count a slave for census purposes, etc. If the South hadn't been able to show up, the northern states would simply have ignored those issues, and the secession of those states might have come 70 years early. Would the North have been able to resist it so successfully at that point?

Likewise, Sunni Arabs have a big stake in the permanent constitution. Will it give Kirkuk and its oil to the Kurds, depriving Arabs of any share in those revenues? Will it ensconce Shiite law as the law of the land? Will it keep a unicameral parliament, in which Shiites would have a permanent majority, or will it create an upper chamber where Sunnis might be better represented, on the model of the US senate? If all those issues go against the Sunnis because they aren't there to argue their positions, it would set Iraq up for guerrilla war into the foreseeable future.

Dr Cole's reference to 1789 come at a good time for me. I must admit that even though I am a 58 year old college graduate my knowledge of US history was nearly zip. With all of the arguments about what the founding fathers intended I decided it was time to remedy that sorry state of affairs. I have been reading John Ferling's A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic. It covers the period from 1750 to 1800 in great detail, 500 pages worth of detail. It is truly amazing how close the United States came to not being. The divisions between the North and the South were sharp from the very beginning. I have just finished the lengthy section on the constitutional convention of 1789 and the ratification of the constitution by the states following the convention. Dr Cole is correct, if the South had not participated in the convention there would be no United States of America today. Any Iraqi constitution constructed without Sunni and Kurdish participation can only result in deep divisions and civil war.

PS
Get well soon Jazz.