Stagflation - the Worst of All Possible Worlds

Unemployment is at 5%, inflation is 6.3%. The infamous Misery Index is 11.3, its highest level since 1984.

The news that 2007 has the worst inflation numbers in 26 years fell off the MSNBC headlines quicker than an overpriced Orange County house falls into foreclosure. It is, in fact, bigger and more dangerous news than anything out of Iraq, Iran, or Israel. Some of us have been saying for years that the George Bush economic philosophy of tax cuts for the rich, massive budget deficits to fund his war toys, and maximum oil profits would eventually destroy the nation. It is. (Note to Hillary and Barack: It's the economy, stupid!)

Stagflation: an economy undergoing brisk inflation while while suffering from weak or negative growth. The inflation eats up savings and investments while the stagnation makes it impossible for even the most nimble entrepreneur to prosper. A few industries and countries make out like bandits (can we say Exxon and Saudi Arabia) while everyone else is struggling to pay for ever increasing staples while the risk of unemployment looms ever nearer.

That date 26 years ago, 1981, was towards the end of the worst longterm economic conditions in the United States since the Great Depression. For 14 years, from 1968 through 1983, the US struggled with a weak economy and rising prices. It started when a Texas President (Lyndon Johnson) racked up record deficits funding an endless war with no concern for the domestic economy. The oil price shock of 1973 strengthened the twin-headed monster. Inflation frequently topped 10% a year while unemployment peaked in 1983 at 9.7%. In 1980 the "Misery Index" (inflation plus unemployment) was over 20%. Mortgage interest rates peaked near 15% (1983) and the Prime Interest Rate broke 20% in 1981.

The end didn't come until 1983 when oil prices fell by half. Inflation broke first, falling to 3.2% in 1983. But, unemployment was still high (9.7%) and didn't fall below 6% until 1988. Mortgage interest rates didn't fall below 9% until 1991.

More graphs than you can shake a stick at:
Oil prices from 1947 to 2007
Inflation from 1946 to 2006
Unemployment from 1946 to 2006
Interest rates through history

Historical Perspective Can Be a Bitch

I have here in my hand a list of 205 people that were known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who nevertheless are still working and shaping the policy of the State Department. ~ Joseph McCarthy, 1950

I've got before me a list of 80 attacks on Hillary that are quite personal by Sen. Obama and his campaign going back six months that I've had pulled. ~ Bill Clinton, 2008

I've got this list I'm keeping hidden but, believe me, it exists and is just horrible and is secret proof that those people over there are evil...evil...evil. ~ Translation of both above comments.

Two California Stories

Property Tax End Run
I live in San Diego, world famous home to disastrous wildfires. Proposition 13 is holy scripture in California. This cap on property taxes is now 30 years old and, despite its flaws, no politician interested in reelection or the survival of his party would dare question it or try to change it. Until now. In a brilliant move, Gov. Schwarzenegger has devised a stealth end run around Prop. 13. Arnold's idea is to impose a "fee" on property insurance to pay for state fire fighting efforts. Increasing property taxes directly requires a 2/3 vote of the people. This fee just needs to pass the legislature.

Government officials for decades have quietly fumed over their inability to hike property taxes. If this fee can be imposed without dissent, it opens the door for attaching additional fees onto the property insurance bill. Insurance companies can be made into tax collectors and Prop. 13 can be quietly put to death.

Trigger-Happy Cop
San Diegans know to be very afraid whenever a policeman pulls his weapon because we know there is no law to protect us from a cop with a gun. In December 2006, a San Diego County sheriff ended an argument with his wife by shooting and killing her (most people would call it murder) in front of their 4 year-old son. San Diego's District Attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, never saw a cop shooting she couldn't justify. The DA called the killing "voluntary manslaughter" and she agrees with the defense attorney that the cop should get the lightest possible sentence. The available range is 6 to 21 years in prison.

The problem is the judge has a reputation as an honest man and DA Dumanis is terrified the judge will impose an appropriate sentence. So the DA and the defense attorney have filed a joint motion to remove the judge from the case so a properly obsequious judge can complete this miscarriage of justice.

I've considered compiling listing of many examples of California police shooting unarmed people (like the dozen shots that killed a naked man holding a stick), but I'm afraid if I do I'll get pulled over for speeding some day and end up collecting lead bullets.

Historical Perspective on Real ID

In 1932, Joseph Stalin instituted an "internal passport" system in the Soviet Union to fight the threat of "counterrevolutionaries." Based on a hated czarist system abolished by Lenin, this internal identification paper quickly became the basis of state control over every aspect of life in Russia. Police could demand this passport at anytime and there were severe penalties for those who didn't carry it. Travel and employment was impossible without this document. You needed the passport to board a train. You were required to show this ID for even the lowliest kind of job. For a resident of Kiev to travel to Leningrad without an obvious reason would attract the attention of the police.
Photo: Nazi Kennkarte, Citizen Identification document.

In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security hired Yevgeny Primakov and Alexander Karpov as consultants. Both former ranking officials in the Soviet KGB, they were tasked with developing internal security programs for the United States. See also. (This falls under the category of persistent rumor. I can find no hard news source but there are dozens of separate sources, including Primakov himself on a British radio broadcast. There is so much smoke I tend to believe there is fire beneath it.) Primakov is quoted as openly comparing the DHS Real ID system to the old Soviet system.

Uses of Real ID
This internal passport will be a required document to travel by airplane anywhere within the United States (see below), to check into any hotel, and to rent a car. It will be a required document for entry into any government building. This government identity paper will be required for any job, even the most menial. It will be required to be allowed to vote. It will be require to receive medical treatment. It will quickly become the single most important piece of plastic in every American's life. The police will be able to turn someone into an unperson by the simple act of confiscating their Real ID. See also prisonplanet, Charlotte Iserbyt, Real Nightmare, and Privacy Digest.

Add in the "Secure Flight" System
The Transportation Safety Administration has proposed a system where every American traveling by airplane within the United States must first gain federal government permission for travel. Called "Secure Flight" it will require airlines to report all travelers to the TSA and boarding passes can be issued only if the government grants permission.

Candidates and Real ID
Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul are the only Republicans to oppose Real ID. John McCain loves it. All Democrats except Hillary Clinton have expressed strong opposition. Clinton dislikes the cost of the program but has no objection to the purpose. Source.

Iraq War: Quarterly Update

There is no denying that deaths have fallen sharply over the last three months. It appears to be from a combination of factors:

1. The American military has begun hiring Sunni insurgents, paying them more money to shoot at somebody else than they were earning shooting at Americans.
2. The Shi'ite militias have been keeping their power dry. Their ongoing ceasefire has been a major factor in the quiet months.
3. Ethnic cleansing has been mostly accomplished, there are few remaining mixed neighborhoods.
   
4. War casualties from the border fighting between Turkey and the Kurds are not being included into any statistics.

This may mark the beginning of Iraqi acceptance of their colonial status. The alleged Iraq government is as dysfunctional as ever, but, as a colonial puppet government, it has never had to be functional. It is telling to me that when John McCain spoke about the United States occupying Iraq for 100, 1000, a million years it didn't cause a ripple of comment from Iraqis. That is colonial obsequence.

If Republicans (including Hillary Clinton) maintain the presidency long enough the colonial status of Iraq will become permanent. Like the Philippines 100 years ago, the Iraqi mothers will get used to their daughters earning better money as whores than their husbands can earn at honest labor, the young men will learn that the best jobs available to them will be working for the US Army, almost all Iraqis will accept the constant petty humiliations of being second class citizens in their own country, those who don't will be imprisoned or killed for their pride, and the American populous will become used to owning Iraq and will consider it our noblesse oblique.

American Military Deaths
4th quarter 2007 .... 98
4th quarter 2006 .... 303
War Total .......... 3,921

Total US deaths for 2007 - 901 (the highest yearly total of the five years of the war).

source
tag: Iraq, War

Hell Is...

both Bloomberg and Clinton running for president. The ninth level of Hell is if Giuliani regains his lead and we have an all-conservative, all-New York, all-let's just give up because anarchy would be better November 2008 election.

Take Me to Your Lizard

It is too soon to write about New Hampshire - what was real, was there fraud, what does it portent. Too soon. But, the election last night has reminded me all day of Xaxis.

That wholly remarkable book, the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, talks about the planet Xaxis. On that world the people are people and the leaders are lizards. The people hate being ruled by the lizards but, it is a democracy. They've all got the vote, so the people all pretty much assume that the government they've voted in more or less approximates to the government they want. They keep voting for lizards, even though they hate them, because if they didn't the wrong lizard might get elected.

The photo is of that great symbol of democracy, the Greater Earless Lizard.

There's a Sucker Born Every Minute, and Most are Republicans

A fool and his money are soon parted. ~ Dutch proverb

So, I'm looking through DailyKos and I come on this diary posting that Redstate.com is begging for money. Of course, I popped over to Redstate and, sure enough, they've got a $22,000 beg plea headlined.

Redstate.com is owned by Eagle Publishing. Only a year ago they trumpeted this acquisition would provide "RedState with the resources it needs to continue playing a leading role in the conservative movement" (source). Eagle Publishing is a huge company. Their executives spend more than $22,000 a month on cocktail wieners. Yet the conservative dolts are falling all over themselves to throw money at this wealthy enterprise. Sales of their books may be down (collapsed), but it must reassure Eagle Publishing executives in their cushy offices that the Bushite suckers can always be counted on to do stupid things.

To juice the gifts, the Eagle Publishing moochers are now whining they are "under attack" by lefties.

Handicapping the Presidential Race

I don't want to predict New Hampshire because it is a coin flip in both parties. If Obama wins, so will Romney; if McCain wins, so will Clinton. Same rules as before, I'll be offering my odds and, for comparison, in red the odds calculated by the Intrade Trading Exchange.

Democrats
Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY) - 1 to 1 (1 to 1)
Clinton has lost her momentum but hasn't lost her edge. She has the resources and guile to wage a mudslinging extravaganza against Obama. Her latest effort is to praise Obama as the most liberal candidate in the race with the goal of chasing independents to Republican McCain. At the same time Edwards is accusing Obama of selling out to conservatives.

Barack Obama (Sen-IL) - 1.5 to 1 (1 to 1)
Obama has momentum, charisma, enthusiasm, and charm. Clinton has ruthlessness and the Democratic (I almost typed "Republican") establishment. Obama's test will be in the great, unwashed wilderness of California, Florida, and Michigan. I don't like it, but I still have to give Hillary the edge.

John Edwards (former Sen-NC) - 30 to 1 (24 to 1)
His second place finish will just about buy him a taco, if he also has a dollar. He threw everything he has - money, time, and energy - into Iowa. He needed to win. Has only a slender hope that Obama and Clinton will destroy each other.

Republicans
Mitt Romney (former gov-MA) - 4 to 1 (5 to 1)
Didn't suffer as much as pundits think in Iowa but he needs New Hampshire. A double loss will handicap him severely. Oddly, his wisest move will be to subtly boost Obama to keep independents from voting for McCain.

St. John McCain (Sen-AZ) - 7 to 1 (2 to 1)
All this talk about Jesus from Romney and Huckabee and here is McCain doing the resurrection bit. Beloved by the Washington reporters (and nearly nobody else) many conservatives are seeing St. John as the only viable alternative to the bible-thumper.

Mike Huckabee (gov-AR) - 8 to 1 (5 to 1)
Kinda enforces the whole George Bush is the AntiChrist theory the way the Orthodox Republicans are in a paroxysm of horror at Huckabee's win. Could win South Carolina, Florida, Michigan, and Texas. Add a four-way tie in California and the odds of a brokered convention loom.

Rudy Giuliani^tm (former mayor of New York) - 10 to 1 (2.5 to 1)
Sixth place in Iowa, behind Ron Paul. Possibly fifth place, again behind Paul, in New Hampshire. Not bothering to engage in the election until Florida. It is hard to win a race if the other horses are rounding the quarter-mile pole and you are still strapping on the saddle.

Fred Thompson (actor-TN) 30 to 1 (30 to 1)
Skipping New Hampshire to concentrate on South Carolina, where he is in fourth place polling 15%. Am I the only one to notice that that Fred is avoiding the snows of Manchester for the warmer climes of Charleston? There is a hammock waiting for Fred that he just can't wait to get back to. It is fun reading Republican bloggers whine that Fred is the only "real conservative" in the race and he is attracting less support than Larry the Cable Guy.

Ron Paul (congressman-TX) - 40 to 1 (20 to 1)
There are two Republican candidates absolutely despised by Orthodox Republicans. Don't be surprised if Paul pulls another 10 percent of the vote in New Hampshire.

Iowa Musings

It is possible, damn well mandatory in punditry circles, to read too much into the results of the Iowa caucuses. No one ever won a presidential nomination in Iowa although some have lost it there (Yeah, I'm talking to you, Phil Gramm.)

Democrats
I hit the trifecta, the top three in the correct order (Yay, me!). While Clinton took a hit to her "inevitability" message the results don't otherwise change the longterm election dynamics. I suspect that John Edwards invested too much physical energy in Iowa; pulling that all-nighter may have moved him from third to second but he showed signs of exhaustion Thursday night. He needs a good sleep but there are only five days to New Hampshire.

I expect the Clinton camp to spin Obama's win as the Oprah Effect, an aberration caused by Oprah campaigning with him. She'll also blame outsiders, college students, for Obama's win but she will avoid using the word "carpetbaggers" unless she is hopelessly thick. Obama, if he is wise, will not lose focus on Super-duper Tuesday as he shifts over to New Hampshire. The nomination will be won or lost of February 5, not January 8.

Republicans
I got the predictions all wrong. Have I mentioned recently that I really don't understand Republicans? Fred Thompson and John McCain are trying to spin their third/fourth place results as victories because they prove both are not quite dead yet. Neither result is remarkable. Thompson campaigned heavily, for his lazy self, it is an effort he cannot sustain. McCain's 13 percent is a little better given he avoided the state. Both results are more anti-Huck/Mitt than pro-Fred/John.

The big loser is Rudy Giuliani. His decision to sit out the early votes and focus on Feb. 5 is biting him in the ass big time. The nomination may be won or lost in February but you have to at least suit up for the first quarter. His result (4%) is pathetic; he couldn't even get the anti-other guys votes. (Advice for the future: Even if you are sitting out Iowa, have a stealth field operation in the state. McCain did.) Romney invested so much time and money in Iowa his result is horrible but survivable.

What to say about Huckabee? He is a one-trick pony with little money. The hatred he is attracting from the pro-war/anti-tax Republicans is new; Pat Robertson and Gary Bauer never saw this. Orthodox Republicans have grown used to the evangelicals being good little soldiers; the slightest chance of a faith-based coup in the party is triggering a bitter reaction. The question is, will the religious Republicans loyally return to the fold after Huckabee is crushed like an insect?

Memories of Sleepless Nights

MSNBC has an article on the blunders that sleepy presidential candidates are apt to make staggering around Iowa. Obama exaggerating the death toll of a tornado (it was 12 dead, not 10,000) and Clinton observing that she had 300 supporters "literally freezing to death" - apparently they all survived. John Edwards pulling an all-nighter. It reminded me of an election past.

In 1989 I was working on a San Diego City Council campaign. They had off-year voting in those days to depress voting and enhance Republican chances. My candidate was also a good friend so I threw myself body and soul into the campaign. We were a grass-roots campaign, bodies making up for a lack of money. During the day I worked with the volunteers, keeping them engaged and interested while walking precincts. On weekends I walked with them. At night, when everybody else went home, I stayed behind doing data entry on our only computer. The volunteers corralled hundreds of supporters during their walks and by dawn I had made sure they were all in the computer. I took one or two breaks a night to visit the nearest Denny's for coffee, maybe a catnap or two, and because the campaign headquarters had a shower I was even able to keep marginally clean.

This lasted for about a week, I think, it seemed like three months. One morning the candidate and her campaign manager took me aside and in the sweetest possible way told me to go home and get some sleep because I was beginning to scare the volunteers. We won.

Not an Endorsement; Simply a Declaration

I don't endorse candidates because that implies I believe someone is foolish enough to change their votes based on my personal preferences. This is more a matter of full disclosure so people can judge how asinine (or sound) my opinions are during this campaign year.

Level 1 - People I Want to be President
Chris Dodd - It means a lot to me that he went to the wall on the FISA bill. It is hard to get a full understanding of Dodd because coverage of his campaign is so thin, but what I have heard I like.
John Edwards - Every political party is filled to the ceiling with people bought and paid for by the rich and powerful. It is past due time for a president willing to look out for the poor and meek.

Level 2 - People Fully Qualified to be President
Barack Obama - Obama strikes me as someone who genuinely believes in using power to help others and not to glorify himself. That is a unique trait that historically has made for great presidents. I worry that he might be more open to waging war than Dodd or Edwards.

Level 3 - People Who, as President, Would be Better than a Stick in the Eye
Hillary Clinton - She is running for herself, not the country. Every decision she makes, even war and peace, will be based totally on whether or not it is good for her. Still, she has several good ideas and, on the whole, would not totally suck as President.
John McCain - Occasionally semi-rational, occasionally a pandering toady. It is impossible to know which trait would dominate were he President. I think, probably, he would occasionally try to do the right thing.

Level 4 - People Who Would be Disasters
Mitt Romney - Romney is what the Republicans always accused Bill Clinton of being. He would be a focus group Decider. There is no political philosophy, no moral principle that isn't for sale within his brain. The only reason to elect Romney is that, after four years, people will look back fondly upon the Bush years.
Fred Thompson - The next best thing to anarchy. Understands little about the issues of our time and cares even less about them. A Thompson presidency would be filled with corruption and blunders.

Level 5 - People Who Scare the Fucking Shit Out of Me
Rudy Giuliani - Make no mistake, Rudy wants the presidency because of a lust for power. He wants to wield that power in ways that will increase his power still more. He will rule from fear and by fear. If you want a historical parallel, Rudy is Joe Stalin in 1922, a dictator wanna-be.
Ron Paul - A flat-out 19th century racist. He has stated that emancipating slaves was wrong because the federal government stole the property of Southern slaveholders.
Mike Huckabee - I don't care what his religion is. What frightens me is that he very much cares what my religion is. Huckabee has openly stated his goal is to "take the country back for Christ." He has a profound disinterest in anything that is not in the Bible. Worse still, he has demonstrated an easy willingness to scrap "Christian morality" in his crusade to Christianize the United States. A Huckabee presidency will divide the nation into three castes. The evangelicals will be the Brahman caste in which all power will be vested. Less radically devotional Christians will fill the Varnas caste. They will be tolerated as long as they don't aspire to the higher ranks of political or economic power. The Untouchables will be the Jews, Muslims, and other non-Christians as well as homosexuals, Hispanics, and Blacks. This "polluted" caste will be lucky even to find jobs.

A New Year's Eve Treat

Forget murder, mayhem, Iowa mudslinging. It is time for GrooveLily's annual retelling of Hans Christian Anderson's "The Little Match Girl."

The musical is Striking Twelve and you can buy the CD here.

Pakistan's Day of the Long Knives

Was there an attempt on Thursday to wipe out all of the political opposition to Pakistan's dictator Pervez Musharraf? On the same day that Benazir Bhutto was assassinated there was a deadly attack at a political rally by Nawaz Sharif, the head of another opposition party and a political ally of Bhutto. Terrorists are anarchists who love chaos because it weakens legitimate governments. Dictators also love chaos because it gives them an excuse to crack down on the population, stifle dissent, and imprison or kill their opponents.

For both Bin Laden and Musharraf the assassination of Bhutto has been a win-win.

Visuals from Pakistan

The Assassination of Benazir Bhutto
New York Times photo-journalist John Moore attended the rally where Bhutto was murdered. The website above has his photos and an audio commentary of the event.

Pakistan in Chaos [Updated]

Which is worse, Benazir Bhutto is assassinated just ten weeks after returning to Pakistan by al Qaeda or her being killed by an agent of dictator Pervez Musharraf? Or, what if her murder was an alliance between Musharraf agents and al Qaeda?

The first instance shows that al Qaeda and their Pashtun partners have the reach and power to attack anyone, anywhere in the country. Even the presence of "hundreds of riot police with metal detectors" was a minor obstacle.

The second instance suggests those police were not there to protect Bhutto and the rally but to insure Bhutto's death. This means that Musharraf has decided to become ruthless and that George Bush has made the United States best friends with yet another butcher.

The third instance is the worst. Musharraf wanted Bhutto dead and Bin Laden used one of his minions to pull the trigger. This worst case scenario would explain a lot. It would explain how the killer got both a gun and a bomb through the gauntlet of security. If Musharraf and Bin Laden are allies it would explain the chronic failure of Musharraf's military to sniff out any of the al Qaeda bases known to be operating freely in Western Pakistan. In this instance the Afghanistan adventure is a meaningless gesture as al Qaeda has simply traded up to a bigger and better sponsoring state. You can forget being afraid that Iran might, some day, get a nuclear weapon because they already has access to Pakistan's bombs.

More information of the Bhutto assassination via Newsweek. Bhutto had predicted her own death and, in advance, laid the blame on several specific members of Musharraf's government. The security equipment Musharraf's government provided habitually malfunctioned. If Musharraf's security forces didn't actively murder Bhutto, they invited her death. Bhutto's death is meant to bring the death of Pakistan's hopes for democracy. Both Musharraf and Bin Laden benefit from the death of democracy.

Republican Philosophers

1. If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves.
2. The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.
   
3. Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.
4. Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless.
5. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
6. By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
7. I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.
8. It is not truth that matters, but victory.
9. Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it.
10. I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace.

Sources: Lenin: 1 & 2; Mao: 3; Hitler: 4-9; George Bush: 10.

Iowa Predictions

Less that a fortnight remains before the Iowa Caucuses. I have sacrificed a couple of goats to study their entrails.

Democratic Caucuses: Barack Obama will win by what will seems like a comfortable margin. John Edwards will eke out a second place finish ahead of Hillary Clinton.

Republican Caucuses: A tough competition between God's anointed and Bush's chosen. The Republican establishment will pull every trick, dirty and otherwise, to throw the caucuses to Romney. I will not be surprised if bribes and death threats are offered in equal measure. Mitt Romney will win by a toenail. Mike Huckabee will be second. Ron Paul will beat out McCain for third place.

Now, please, a moment of silence for Buttercup and Pinocle, the two pet goats who volunteered to assist me in these predictions.

Romney's Delusions

History can be a bitch. Facts even worse.

I saw my father march with Martin Luther King. ~ Mitt Romney

A simple, declarative sentence. Totally bunk, never happened. It took researchers only a few days to discover that sentence was a lie. What I love is Mitt's reaction. Like a man totally driven by his ego, Mitt is refusing to admit the mistake. Instead, he is parsing the verb to see. Mitt claims that he "figuratively" saw his father with King. It was what Mitt "saw" in his imagination, you see, but that doesn't make it any less real to him. And, hence, it should be just as real to us.

We have one Republican candidate for president (Huckabee) who claims he talks to an invisible spirit, another (Giuliani) whose delusions of grandeur are so deep he believes he did more work at Ground Zero than the rescue workers, and now a third (Mitt) who believes he saw things that never happened. And, these three are the leaders in the polls. It seems insanity is a mandatory qualification for the Republican nomination.

The Anbar Awakening Simplified

The Anbar Awakening is the term used to describe the fact that Sunni tribesmen in Iraq's Al Anbar province have turned against Al Qaeda and are accepting help from the American military to drive Al Qaeda out of the province. Conservative bloggers point to this fact with orgasmic glee as proof the Surge is working. So, what is this Awakening?

Simply put, the US Army have out-bid Al Qaeda for the services of the Sunni tribal fighters. Al Qaeda had provided employment and protection from Shiite militias and with its usual ham-fisted approach made themselves unwelcome as well. When the US Army offered better pay, better guns, and better training the tribesmen accepted. The American's goal was short-term, convince the Anbar Sunni tribesmen to stop shooting at US soldiers and start shooting Al Qaeda's Saudi fighters. The Anbar Sunni tribesmen's goal was unchanged, build fighting forces capable of defending their families from Iraqi Shiite militiamen and the Shiite/Kurdish Iraqi army.

The long-term American goal depended on the Iraqi government embracing the Sunni tribal fighters as allies. That is not happening. Indeed, this short-term success has simply created a False Spring. The Mahdi Army, Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr's militia, has not disappeared. They are playing a guerrilla strategy of laying low while the US Army surges, knowing the surge cannot be maintained and a wiser time to fight lay in the future.

So in war, the way is to avoid what is strong and to strike at what is weak. ~ Sun Tzu, The Art of War

The Anbar Awakening shows the short-term success of the Surge while also illustrating that it will probably, eventually, fail. When the Surge ends, as it must, the United States will find itself exactly where it was a year ago - between two factions in civil war with insufficient troops to keep the factions from tearing the country apart. The presence, or absence, of Al Qaeda from the equation was never a serious factor.

Congressional Research Service report on Iraq and Al Qaeda (pdf) (Not so much a source as a resource)

P.S. - My sinuses appear to be recovering. The ability to breath through one's nose is a vastly underestimated skill.

The Winter of My Discontent

Simply put, my problem is that I have holes in my head that are way smaller than they ought to be. Fluctuating temperatures - warm, cold, indoors, outdoors - and changing humidity love to wage war in my sinuses. As a consequence, the breezy passageways that separates my brain from my face become in winter swollen, narrow, throbbing dungeons. Allergic Sinusitis is an annual ritual of the season, like mistletoe and Santa Claus.

There are several issues that interest me (Chris Dodd's FISA filibuster victory; Huckabee's still too stealthy theocratic campaign; Rudy's pending, and long predicted by me, collapse), top of these is my realization that the Anbar Awakening has suppressed al Qaeda at the cost of insuring an Iraqi Civil War. But, thinking much about any of these requires...well, thinking. It's funny how having my skull stuffed full of pulsating wet cotton makes thinking difficult.

The Softer Side of Politics

Maybe there is an allergen in the air in Iowa in the winter, maybe the icy winds of New Hampshire are stinging their eyes, but there seems to be an epidemic of misty eyes in election circles.

Mitt Romney got "tearful" in a speech yesterday in NH talking about watching a casket of a returning soldier. Given he has referenced this story scores of times while campaigning it is funny, less than a month before the NH primary, he is only now getting emotional about it. Same day, Hillary Clinton got "glassy eyed" at an event in Iowa where people gathered to tell Hillary how much they loved her, sort of a This Is You Life script written by her campaign staff.

I get it, they're humans (although I'm still open to the Romney is an android theory). It's tricky business, trying to sell a candidate's sensitive side. Pitch too hard and you turn off voters, no one is going to vote for a man they think is going to start sobbing in the Oval Office. Soft sell it wrong and your candidate looks like a faker. Bill Clinton was a master at achieving that delicate balance. Mitt and Hillary ain't.

The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made. ~ Jean Giraudoux

A Holiday Nosh

Seventy years ago in a movie called "Way Out West" Laurel and Hardy step off a stage, annoy a married woman and her gun slinging hubby, and danced to a song by the Avalon Boys. The music starts 1:30 in and is worth the wait.

If God's On Our SideHe'll Stop the Next War

His name is Bob Dylan, he was 22 when he wrote With God On Our Side. But, these things mean nothing. Whenever I hear some Republican preacher/politician claim a personal relationship with Jesus on the inhale and hector for endless war on the exhale, I think of the final lines to this song.

Joan Baez is the singer.

Bush Defends His Right to Torture

In the spirit of the season, George Bush has objected to the Intelligence Authorization Act (HR 2082) because it will make illegal what already is illegal, the CIA torture camps. Bush's objections to this and more are couched in legalese (here in pdf format) but they translate easily into English.

Section 327 requires the CIA and all other "human intelligence collectors" to abide by the Army Field Manual for interrogations. Meaning, no more of the various torture methods the CIA is known to use including waterboarding. Bush objects. Section 413 creates an Inspector General for the whole intelligence community with a very detailed scope of responsibilities. Bush wants to maintain a fractured and ineffective oversight.

Section 444 requires Senate confirmation for intelligence community department heads. As always, Bush objects to Senate participation in government. Section 406 requires a comprehensive listing of all Special Access Programs (SAPs). SAPs are Department of Defense black ops, those almost always illegal ultra-top secret activities that are more romantic and noble in spy novels than real life. Bush objects to even a vague listing of these activities.

Section 328 requires that the congressional intelligence committees be briefed regarding Israel's bombing of a Syrian facility or the National Intelligence Program does not get fully funded. Bush objects. Section 329 simply gives the force of law to all reporting requirments in the classified portion of the bill. Bush calls that "absurd."

Section 502 requires reporting to Congress of any attempt to overthrow a "democratically elected government" in the past decade. Setting aside for the moment the simple question, What the Hell is the United States doing trying to overthrow democratically elected governments?!!! If we are doing that then Congress has the bloody hell right to know about it. Damn it, the American People have the right to know. Bush wants to keep that all secret. (P.S. This is an attempt to pry the lid off Bush's attempted coup in Venezuela in 2002.)

Section 307 addresses the practice of using private contractors (Blackwater) in the secret agent biz and requires reports. Bush claims that such reports are impossible as they would require work.

Fred Thompson in Ohio

Fred Thompson was in Ohio today bragging that he remembers the lineup for the '64 Cleveland Indians. So do I.

1. Dick Howser - SS (3 HR, .45 BA)
2. Vic Davalillo - CF (6 HR, .270 BA)
3. Leon Wagner - LF (31 HR, .253 BA)
4. Max Alvis - 3B (18 HR, .252 BA)
5. Fred Whitfield - 1B (10 HR, .270 BA)
6. Tito Francona - RF (8 HR, .248 BA)
7. Johnny Romano - C (19 HR, .241 BA)
8. Woodie Held - 2B (18 HR, .236 BA)

Larry Brown (12 HR, .230 BA) ended the season playing more secondbase than Held; Bob Chance (14 HR, .279 BA) played a lot at firstbase.

Does this mean I am qualified to be the Republican nominee for President of the United States?

Clinton, Coke, Obama, and Mud

First off, I am not in political love with Barack Obama. His campaign association with a homophobic preacher (one Rev. Donnie McClurkin) was disturbing and his occasional bellicosity towards Iran is bizarre. There is every reason to question Obama's liberal bona fides.

With that caveat, the mud being heaved at Obama from the Clinton camp is reaching Republican levels of scuzz. The latest turd toss comes from Billy Shaheen, the co-chairman of Hillary Clinton's New Hampshire campaign. Shaheen, today, said that Obama's use of cocaine while in high school (30 years ago) makes him unelectable. Let's see now. George Bush Jr. was a shitfaced drunk for most of his adult life. Bill Clinton used pot in college but never inhaled (yeah, right). Hillary probable took hits at the same parties.

A three decade old drug use that hasn't scarred or retarded his life one jot is a non-story. Does Obama need to be able to deflect that attack? Yep. In that, Shaheen is doing Obama a favor by giving him some training camp practice fielding the mud. For me, the story is that a Clinton surrogate is so frightened by the trends of the campaign that he felt the need to open the shit valve. Did Clinton approve of the mud slinging? Don't know, but Shaheen is no amateur. He either cleared the statement with Clinton's staff or is himself authorized to speak on her behalf.

The Halliburton Rape Case

Jamie Leigh Jones was a beautiful young employee of Halliburton's Kellogg Brown and Root subsidiary working in Iraq's Green Zone. One day more than two years ago, her fellow KBR employees decided to drug and gang raped her. After the rape, she was imprisoned by armed KBR security guards in a shipping container, held without food or water for 24 hours, and threatened that if she told anyone or sought treatment for the multiple rapes she would be fired. Ms. Jones convinced a humane guard to loan her a cell phone. She called her father. He called Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX) who contacted the State Department which organized the rescue of Ms. Jones. Physical evidence of the rape, the rape kit, disappeared while in the possession of KBR security personnel. No criminal charges have been filed and KBR is fighting to prevent Ms. Jones from pursuing a civil suit.

Ms. Jones and her family have organized a nonprofit foundation to help other women who have been raped and abused while working for federal contractors overseas.

via Crooks and Liars: ABC News report
The Jamie Leigh Foundation website

Did Andrew Young Uncle Tom for Clinton?

Playing the Race Card is one of the most disgusting things a campaign can do, even though it often works. Jesse Helms was a master at it. Bob Corker won election to the Senate in Tennessee last year with a revolting example. It is seldom tried in a Democratic Party primary because Democrats react with rage at such blatant racism. What, then, was Andrew Young up to on NewsmakersLive?

To an African-American audience, Young pitched the message that Barack Obama is too young, not black enough, doesn't have enough black friends, and hasn't slept with enough black women. Young came close to calling Obama "Boy." He implicitly charged miscegenation, telling a lie that Obama is part Chinese. Obama's mother is a white American. If his exact same words has been spoken by some Good ol' Boy it would have been understood as old school, Strom Thurmond racism.

It was subtle, but Young managed to sneak in all of the old racist canards. It was something no white supporter of Hillary Clinton could have gotten away with. Only someone with the reputation of Young could have taken up the role of Lester Maddox.

Obama will have to withstand this test because Huckabee, Giuliani, or Romney will certainly be more blatantly racist should they have a chance. Still, it is disappointing and no less disgusting that the first person in the 2008 election to play the Race Card against Obama was Andrew Young on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Five Most Dangerous Presidential Candidates

There are many ways to choose a candidate - tallest, best looking, nicest smile, correct on the issues (oh, how quaint). I'm going to look at the reverse, the five candidates whose very existence most place the nation, the Constitution, and our freedom at risk.

1. Mike Huckabee - Huckabee would place an extreme definition of Christianity in control. It is wrong to assume that Men of God are, necessarily, moral. Huckabee's faith, like that of the Taliban's Mullah Omar, believes that all temporal matters, like freedom and personal liberty, are subordinate to the commands of God. Or, more accurately, to their personal commands as God's chosen rulers. Huckabee would do what Bush has only attempted. He would impose a theocratic rule over all American's public and private lives and woe unto those who fail the test of faith.
2. Rudy Giuliani - Imagine Michael Corleone as president. This is not a knock of Rudy's Italian heritage; I would prefer the analogy were less accurate. Rudy is ruthless - he has bragged to have tortured people he interrogated while a district attorney. This is, in fact, a lie. Rudy has a psychopath's ability lie as readily as other people breath. He is not just dishonest but fundamentally corrupt. He mentored Bernie Kerik into a 16 count federal fraud and racketeering indictment. He has been hiding from scrutiny his "consulting" business activities. He would engage in war just so his friends could profit from it.
3. Mitt Romney - Which is worse, someone whose religious convictions are so pronounced he would easily scrap the law and Constitution if he felt it was God's command (Huckabee) or someone who thinks he has to act like that? Romney is a chameleon. He will believe whatever is most beneficial to him at the moment. It benefits him at the moment to appeal to the Christian Taliban and their desire to debase liberty beneath their faith. Romney is in this for Romney. There is no law, no oath, no freedom he will not sacrifice for Romney.
4. Fred Thompson - Fred is the neo-conservative Useful Idiot. Cut from the same bolt of cloth that gave the nation Warren Harding, Fred will do whatever Fred is told. Want war? Fred will send soldiers to their deaths without a thought. Want to suckle at the Federal teat? Fred will massage it until it is nice and firm. Fred will do whatever Fred is told as long as Fred doesn't have to work or think.
   
5. Hillary Clinton - In the United States political posts should not be considered hereditary titles. Passing the presidency from father to son, from husband to wife, is a repulsive thought to me. When it has been done in the past (John Quincy Adams, George Bush Jr.) it has been a disaster to the nation. I may mostly agree with Hillary's politics (although her thoughts on war and peace are decidedly neo-con) I cannot abide the notion of the presidency being passed back and forth between two families for a quarter of a century as if it were property, a silver tea set.

I could find room for Tancredo, Hunter, and Keyes on this list if they had a chance in hell.

There Are Tests and, then, There Are Tests

Religious Tests. Mitt Romney cut a cute double standard on religious tests today. He started by decrying the concept of religious tests in so far as the questions involve his Mormon faith. In that he is right; if he had stopped right there it would have been a good speech. It doesn't matter if Mitt is a Mormon, a Mohammedan, or a Caodist. His religious philosophy in this multi-ethnic, religiously pluralistic nation is of no important as long has he does not try to impose his faith on others.

Unfortunately, Romney kept talking. He appealed directly to Christian Dominionists. He called for government imposition of religious symbols and festivals "in the public square." He advocated judges who would put a religious interpretation on the Constitution. He had previously stated his opposition to the idea of having a Muslim on his cabinet. A Romney presidency would have a clear Judeo-Christian (emphasis of the Christian) test for federal office.

Romney in Brief: No to religious tests for President; yes to religious tests for everybody else.

Handicapping the Presidential Race - Democrats

Creeping movement in the polls but no paradigm shifts yet with a month until the Iowa caucus. Same rules as before, I'll be offering my odds and, for comparison, in red the odds calculated by the Intrade Trading Exchange.

Hillary Clinton (Sen-NY) - 1 to 2 (1 to 2)
Advantages: Best "name ID" of anyone of either party. Enough money and endorsements to survive several negative hits. Disadvantages: Her name ID is as a Clinton. She is well and truly hated by most Republicans and many Democrats. There is some chattering among the chattering classes that Clinton is in trouble but that strikes me as more fishing for headlines than fact. The biggest risk she faces is a mass revulsion by the electorate of the idea of replacing one family dynasty with a second.

Barack Obama (Sen-IL) - 3 to 1 (3 to 1)
Advantages: Still charismatic. More than enough money to withstand the February mega-primary. Oprah. Disadvantage: Still can't shake the stigma of being a rookie. Obama has to win Iowa, have a respectable showing in New Hampshire, then go into non-stop campaign mode through February. Sleep is for June.

John Edwards (former Sen-NC) - 20 to 1 (16 to 1)
Advantage: Can stand aside and watch Obama and Clinton beat each other into pulp. Disadvantage: Has to stand aside and watch. Obama and Clinton have such big political lungs there is not enough oxygen left for Edwards to breath, let along get a message out. I am reluctant to mention this but it is nonetheless true, Edwards is the most popular white male in the Democratic race. If racial and sexual bigotry surfaces he will benefit. The irony is Edwards would never play that card. (Unlike, say, Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee.)

Chris Dodd (Sen-Conn) - 1000 to 1 (1000 to 1)
Advantage: I like him. Disadvantage: I'm the only one. In every poll, Chris Dodd has less support than the margin of error. That means it is possible, mathematically, that Dodd's actual number of supporters is a negative number.

Further on Romney's Religion

In answer to the comment to the previous post on Romney's Religion: Of course, I am mostly ignorant of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS), I was being both sarcastic and truthful.

Latter-Day Saints themselves consider the Book of Mormon a New Covenant, as this book notes, that supersedes the covenants of the Hebrew and Christian bibles.

The writings of Brigham Young and other church elders has been quite racist, as is some of the text of the Book of Mormon itself.

he had caused the cursing to come upon them...wherefore, as they were white, and exceedingly fair and delightsome, that they might not be enticing unto my people the Lord God did cause a skin of blackness to come upon them. ~ 2 Nephi 5:21

Cain slew his brother....and the Lord put a mark upon him, which is the flat nose and black skin... ~ Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses (third paragraph from the bottom)

Negroes in this life are denied the priesthood; under no circumstances can they hold this delegation of authority from the Almighty....The Negroes are not equal with other races where the receipt of certain spiritual blessings are concerned, particularly the priesthood and the temple blessings that flow there from. ~ Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine 1958

When God allows a spirit to take on a Negroid body, do you suppose He is unaware of the fact that he will suffer a social stigma? Therefore, if you say this Church is unjust in not allowing the Negro to bear the Priesthood, you must, to be consistent, likewise say that God is even more unjust in giving him a black skin. ~ John J. Stewart, Mormonism and the Negro, 1960

The ban of Blacks from the priesthood because they bore the Mark of Cain was lifted in 1978. See also Deuce of Clubs.

As for polygamy, the people who currently practice it have been officially excommunicated by the LDS. But, they believe themselves to be Mormon fundamentalists. They believe the ending of polygamy in 1890 was a political act to gain statehood for Utah (it was) and they refuse to follow it.

What is your definition of a cult? (1) Any religion founded by one person who claims unique insight and/or personal contact with God. (2) Any religion that requires its acolytes to cut themselves off from the rest of society like, say, trekking out to the Utah desert in 1847. (3) Any religion founded in antebellum upstate New York or California in the 1960's. Those were weird times and places for religions.

Romney's Religion

Since Mitt Romney is going to give a speech on his religion, a brief Mormon Primer is in order.

Mormons have much in common with other American cults. Created in 1830 by Joseph Smith, there are about 5.5 million Mormons in the United States and about 10 million worldwide. About 70% of the State of Utah practices the Mormon faith.

• As with many American-born religions, Mormons believe that the United States is the New Jerusalem and God has a special covenant with Americans.
  
• They believe Americans are God's chosen people (sorry about that you Jewish folk). But, not just any Americans, only white Americans. This is similar to the much more obscene beliefs of the Christian Identity movement. It was not until 1978, when Mitt Romney was 31 years-old, that the Mormon Church officially revoked their belief that black skin was the "Mark of Cain" and showed God has cursed all people of color. Interracial marriage is still considered a sin.
  
• Similar to the Oneida Community, Mormons had strange sexual practices. The exact theological underpinnings for polygamy escape me. As near as I can tell, the Mormon God instructed only one wife per man unless he really, really liked you. Then you could have a harem. Polygamy was officially outlawed by the church in 1890. There are today some 60,000 practicing Mormon polygamists, mostly in Utah, Arizona, and Mexico. That is a larger number than practiced polygamy in 1890.
  
• As with other cults, there are organizations to help "deprogram" people from the Mormon faith.
  
• One of the more unusual features of the religion is its underwear fetish.
  

I can't answer the question whether a practicing Mormon should be elected President. I just don't know. However, we have had a practicing imbecile in the office for seven years now and the nation has survived.

Handicapping the Presidential Race - Republicans

The betting line on Republican candidates has been stable except for Huckabee (rocketing up) and Thompson (free fall). As this campaign continues there is now the possibility that this will be the first major political party in US history to throw up their collective hands and nominate nobody. As before, I'll be offering my odds and, for comparison, in red the odds calculated by the Intrade Trading Exchange.

Mitt Romney (former gov-MA) - 5 to 1 (3 to 1)
Advantage: enough money to buy the election outright. Disadvantages: Perceived to be trying to buy the election outright, especially in Iowa. Seems afraid to admit to being a Mormon; he tiptoes around the subject whenever it comes up. Gives off a slick as a used-car salesman vibe. In a dead-heat right now in Iowa with no-budget religious Zealot Huckabee.

Rudy Giuliani^tm (former mayor of New York) - 5 to 1 (1.3 to 1)
Advantages: Comes off as a warrior who never actually fought a war - Republicans love that. Perceived as having "the best chance in November." Disadvantages: Enough negative baggage to sink the Titanic. He's financially corrupt, morally bankrupt, and a royal asshole (that last one might be an advantage). Even his supporters have been reduced to the "not as bad as Bill Clinton" defense. His is a campaign that needs an Air of Inevitability, as that crumbles his support will collapse like a toothpick bridge.

Mike Huckabee (gov-AR) - 5 to 1 (8 to 1)
Advantages: God's anointed, the Zealot's candidate. A southerner not from Massachusetts or New York. Disadvantages: Hated by orthodox Republicans as a Big Government Liberal; highlights the chasm between orthodox Republicans and the religious Zealots. Has little money and a hayseed style that won't sell among people who wear nice shoes. Giuliani supporters have been circulating the idea that Huckabee should be Rudy's Veep. The question is whether the Zealots will accept being the silly monkey shilling for Giuliani's organ grinder.

Fred Thompson (actor-TN) 12 to 1 (17 to 1)
Advantage: Not Rudy, Mitt, or Huck. Disadvantage: Not much of anything else. His little boomlet has fizzled. In horse race parlance he "looked better in the paddock than he does on the track." Still has a slim chance; if Republicans decide to nominate nobody, Thompson's their guy.

St. John McCain (Sen-AZ) - 30 to 1 (13 to 1)
Advantage: Keeps on hanging on. Disadvantages: Hanging on by his fingernails. He has no money anymore. No endorsements anymore. Way too old to be the Comeback Kid. Too well known so that every Republican knows something about McCain they hate.

Ron Paul (congressman-TX) - 40 to 1 (17 to 1)
Advantage: Has the libertarian and Birch Society votes. Disadvantage: Attracts racists and wackos. Ron Paul's campaign events have the circus feel of a Jim Jones People's Temple revival. There is something really scary about the people who go to cheer him.

Newt Gingrich (whatever-GA) - 50 to 1 (300 to 1)
Advantage: He'll be the choice of a brokered convention. Disadvantage: He's Newt, for god sake. Let's say that Rudy locks things up in February. By May, enough new scandals have come out that there is massive buyer's remorse and even possible indictments facing Giuliani. Will Republicans stick with Rudy and go down to a party shattering defeat or will they go to the bench for some old, washed up orthodox conservative?

Republican Schism Ahead

Continuing the analogy that the Republican Party is becoming a religious faith, Republicanism may be heading for a schism. The orthodox church, call it the Goldwater/Reagan denomination, believes in small government, few taxes, and kill all foreigners as articles of the faith. Neo-conservatives are the deacons of this denomination. Their champion in this election cycle is Rudy Giuliani.

The Zealot sect, the DeLay/Falwell/Dobson denomination, hold that the whole of the nation must practice their moral code - and they believe in killing all foreigners. The practical fact is that imposing a specific moral code on a diverse nation requires a large, intrusive government. Their champion, Mike Huckabee, has thus frightened orthodox Republicans with his "big government" philosophies.

For decades, the two sects have maintained an uneasy truce under the leadership of the orthodox church. A few Zealot creeds like anti-abortionism and homophobism were added to the catechism but it was never more than empty recitation of the mantras. Mostly they bonded under their mutual xenophobia. Orthodox leaders like St. Reagan managed to satisfy the Zealots by reciting Zealot creeds without practicing them. As the years have passed a chasm has developed as the Zealots have begun to insist on more than just the words. This year, the chasm appears unbridgeable.

Giuliani is fully orthodox in the manner of Richard Nixon with nothing to appease the Zealots. Mitt Romney has tried to recite the old Zealot mantras but he lacks the fake passion Zealots have come to demand. There was a brief hope that Fred Thompson would appease both factions by reprising the role of amiable dunce played so well by George W. Bush. But that hope has faded as it became apparent that Thompson is not amiable and more corpse than dunce. Into the picture has appeared Mike Huckabee. Zealot to the core, Huckabee is untainted by orthodoxy. An ordained preacher, he includes creationism as a campaign platform.

The Republican Orthodox Church will never accept a Zealot like Huckabee as their anointed leader. Conversely, the Zealots will not surrender their faith to the likes of Giuliani or Romney. There is no middle ground this year and the resulting schism may be as epic as the Seventh Century Sunni/Shia break.

Republican Loyalty Oaths

Ich schwöre: Ich werde dem Führer des Deutschen Reiches und Volkes Adolf Hitler ~ Hitler's mandatory loyalty oath

All people voting in the Virginia Republican primary on Feb. 12 will be required to sign a loyalty oath to the Party. The text, according to the Washington Post, is "I, the undersigned, pledge that I intend to support the nominee of the Republican Party for President." People who refuse to sign the oath will be forbidden the right to vote.

Requiring loyalty oaths is a growing Republican trend. Earlier this year, the Kansas Republican Party required its members to sign a "Unity Pledge" remarkable similar to the Mafia Blood Oath that said in part "I promise never to abandon my present Republican Party" and "at no point will ‘Party switching’ or quitting of the Party be tolerable." I expect "Party switchers" will get wacked.

In 2004, Bush and Cheney famously required signed oaths of loyalty to George Bush for entry into their campaign events and even required people to stand and recited a oral Pledge of Allegiance to Bush. Less well known is when Bush visited the troops in Iraq for Thanksgiving in 2004, only soldiers who swore personal loyalty to Bush were allowed to share the turkey dinner.

I expect more of these oaths as the Republican Party continues its evolution into a religious movement where disloyalty to party is considered a grievous mortal sin. Republicanism, as a religious sect, sees us Democrats as heathens. Evil, of course, but as we are blinded to their light they have a certain degree of pity for us. Having been Republican and leaving the Party is treasonous apostasy, an unforgivable crime against God/Bush where the worst punishments of Hell/Gitmo await. In strict Islam and Christianity, the punishment for apostasy is shunning and death followed by everlasting hellfire.

Right On, Dude!

Rising Hedemon
Sometimes, rarely, pretty much never, I stumble upon writing that is so good, so funny, so goddamn witty all I can do is stand at attention in awed reverence. Rising Hedemon's Fly on the Wall coverage of the Adventures of Rudy and Judi is gobsmackingly delicious. It's like being there, man! I can write no more this morning, after reading such genius, as I feel totally unworthy.

Iraq, the Constitution, and the Trash Can of History

Treaty - An agreement or contract between two or more nations or sovereigns, formally signed by commissioners properly authorized, and solemnly ratified by the several sovereigns or the supreme power of each state. ~ FindLaw.com

He [the President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur ~ Article 2, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution

We don't anticipate now that these negotiations will lead to the status of a formal treaty which would then bring us to formal negotiations or formal inputs from the Congress. ~ White House adviser Douglas Lute

How Bush intends to bypass Congress on the treaty commitment with Iraq he intends to impose on the United States is a lesson in just how meaningless the Constitution has become.

It doesn't take a law degree to know that a detailed, long-term military and economic commitment between sovereign nations is a treaty. While the Founding Fathers did not anticipate future presidents practicing staggering semantic twists to avoid saying the word "treaty," a duck by any other name is still a duck and this agreement will still be a treaty.

The troops will be made hostage again to force Congress to fund the treaty even while they oppose it. Democratic leaders will be afraid to bring the matter to the Supreme Court because the actively partisan members (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia) may well find a fifth vote to invalidate the Constitution in toto. The consequences of that is far worse than the deaths of a few hundred soldiers every year for a couple of decades and the annual loss several billion dollars to graft and corruption. Harry Reid will whine a bit but, in the end, he will role over again like a whipped puppy.

I shall wait in vain for any presidential candidate to say Bush ought to write the agreement in pencil because it will not last a day beyond the '08 election.

Proof I've Watched Too Many Episodes of Mythbusters

My shower drain is running a wee bit slow and I'm thinking that dropping a blasting cap down the drain would be a perfectly good way to clear the clog. Too many Mythbusters? Not possible!

Declaration of Iraqi Colonial Status

In a joint declaration Monday, the government of Iraq declared their nation a permanent possession of the United States of America; the USA agreed to accept ownership of the country. Couched in meaningless diplomatic blather, the declaration has three main components -

• The United States shall maintain a permanent military occupation whose principal responsibility will be to protect the colonial government of Nouri al-Maliki from any and all coups and independence movements;
• The United Nations shall be instructed to extend the temporary ownership of Iraq by the United States for one more year,
• During which time the exact nature of the ownership of Iraq will be crafted by the Bush Administration and imposed upon the Iraqi people.

The economic aspect of the colonial ownership of Iraq is of paramount importance. While the exact wording has yet to be drafted the general direction of the American ownership of Iraq has been known for some time.

• All business activity inside Iraq will be directed by American corporations subject to their payment of sufficient bribes to American colonial civil servants, American military personnel, friends and political supporters of the current American president, and Iraqi politicians.
• All Iraqi natural resources will be wholly owned by American corporations, subject to their payment of sufficient bribes.
  
• Iraqis agree to provide their most beautiful young daughters as prostitutes for the entertainment of their American masters.
• While revolts and independence movements shall be violently suppressed, criminal gangs shall be encouraged as long as they pay sufficient bribes.
  

Two Stories of Modern Slavery

It sounds kind of nice when it is called Free Trade. It isn't so nice when you look behind the curtain at working conditions little different than slavery that are bringing cheap goods into the United States.

Barefoot Forge
Someone at the New York Times noticed that ConEd manhole covers in New York City are stamped with a "Made in India" label. Why, he wondered, was it cheaper to ship these 100-pound lids halfway around the world than make them in Poughkeepsie and barge them down the Hudson River? That journalistic curiosity led to the exposure of the working conditions of the Shakti Industries foundry which makes manhole covers for ConEd. Barefoot, shirtless men wearing cotton skirts and possessing virtually no safety equipment labor in sweltering conditions for just a few dollars a day. While the photographer saw worker's minimal clothing catch on fire, the the company's director boldly heartlessly claimed that they have never had an accident.

Suffer the Little Children
This comes from my other blog, Where God Went Wrong, and before that from the AFL-CIO news blog. The multi-billion dollar American Christian Retail industry is making a killing on crucifixes. The crosses are made in Chinese sweatshops by children who are earning only nine cents an hour (after mandatory deductions for company provided food and housing). These children, mostly 15 and 16 year-old girls, work 14+ hours a day, seven days a week. Sometimes, to meet the demand of the faithful, these children are forced to work shifts lasting as long as 25 hours. These working conditions violate even the lax Chinese laws. It's a cruel twist on the biblical verse:

Suffer the little children to come unto me and forbid them not, for of such is the kingdom of God. ~ Mark 10:14

Secrecy: Government's War Against Her Citizens

In a free society, government secrecy should be limited to a few, narrow categories. Military matters such as troop movement and strategies, the exact designs of unique weapons, and the identity and actions of spies should be closely guarded secrets. Even here, a free society has the right to know what is being done in its defense. The public has the right to know if their military is using terror weapons (such as White Phosphorus). The public has the right to know if its spies are engaged in torture, rape, and murder.

In law enforcement, it is obvious that the people involved in criminal conspiracies ought not be made aware of the investigation targeting them. Equally obvious, law enforcement should not broadcast vague suspicions lest they slander innocent people (an act government frequently engages in under the sobriquet "Person of Interest"). The above excepted, there are very few matters that a government should keep secret from her citizens.

The greater the secrecy, the deeper the corruption. ~ Bill Moyers

It is impossible to list all of the things the United States government deems worthy of secrecy, there is not enough bandwidth on Blogger. The reasons for the secrecy is far easier to list as they are limited by human corruption.

• Power ~ In secrecy is power. It give me power over you if you can't know what I am doing or why. The power can be petty as in airport security. The laws government the Transportation Security Agency are shrouded in secrecy. This secrecy adds nothing to the safety of airline travelers but gives TSA thugs a feeling of omnipotence; no one dare question their acts because no one may know the rules that limit them.
• Fear ~ Fear comes in many forms. In matters of government secrecy the strongest motivation is fear of embarrassment. Individuals in government, like Maine's Attorney General, fear the public will find out what they have done, not because they have necessarily done anything illegal but merely because they are so insecure they are afraid the public will laugh at them. Fear of jail is another frequent reason for government officials in enforce secrecy.
  
• Greed ~ The rampant secrecy in Iraq War contracting is all about hiding the money. No Americans life is risked if the public know the details of Bechtel's contracts. The only risk is to war profiteer's profits.
  
• Sloth ~ Many things in government are marked secret just because it is easy. If I ask you about your government program you can take the time to dutifully answer the questions or you can simply declare it all secret and ignore me. For a journalist, hearing the word "secret" allows him to stop investigating and take an early lunch.
  

Questions are a burden to others; answers are a prison for oneself. ~ The Prisoner

The inspiration for this line of thought was an e-mail I got regarding Sibel Edmonds. Edmonds is a former FBI employee who uncovered a staggering list of illegal acts by the United States government. The government has used secrecy laws to block her testifying before Congress or bring her charges to the public. She has, in general terms, been able to describe the crimes include "illegal weapons sales, money laundering, drug trafficking, nuclear black market" activities by the United States government. That she is telling the truth (as far as she has been able to) can be implied by the extreme efforts the government is going to to block her revelations. Greed has led to fear of imprisonment which has driven the government to levels of secrecy far beyond the need of national security. Indeed, in all likelihood, to the detriment of the nation's security.

Other Sources: Sibel Edmond's website, Daniel Patrick Moynihan's 1998 book Secrecy.

Is Hillary Clinton a Stealth Neo-Conservative?

The thing that struck me most about the Laura Rozen's piece in Mother Jones about the Virginia focus group test marketing war with Iran were the three final questions.

~How would you feel if Hillary bombed Iran?
~How would you feel if George Bush bombed Iran?
~And how would you feel if Israel bombed Iran?

I have had an uncomfortable feeling about Hillary Clinton and the Iraq War. She was too cozy with the Iraq War for too long; whatever opposition she has expressed in recent months has smelled like posturing, telling us what we want to hear not what she thinks. Her positioning on bombing Iran has struck me (and others) as overly nuanced and excessively evasive. I get the sense she is hiding something. My gut believes that Hillary will support bombing Iran as long as she is the one who gets to pull the trigger.

War and Corn Flakes, It's All the Same

The salesman knows nothing of what he is selling save that he is charging a great deal too much for it. ~ Oscar Wilde

To the cynical neo-conservative, war is just a product to be pitched to the American consumer, no different than a laundry detergent or soda brand. First, you hold focus groups to test market snazzy catch-phrases. Then you engage a flashy media blitz (Daily Show clip) to convince the public they just gotta have that mangy puppy. Then, all you gotta do is stand back and watch the bombs fall. Shock and Awe, baby! It worked with Iraq and Ari Fleischer's Freedom's Watch is preparing for a boffo marketing campaign to sell war with Iran.

Where God Went Wrong

more controversial than Oolon Coluphid's trilogy of philosophical blockbusters: Where God Went Wrong, Some More Of God's Greatest Mistakes, and Who Is This God Person Anyway? ~ Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

I have started a new blog - Where God Went Wrong where I shall point out God's major screw-ups (like allowing Pat Robertson to be conceived).
Partly I'm doing this because I am restricted in my political blogging by a desire to only write about things that strike my fancy and then only if I can add something new - if only a quip, a quote, or a poem fragment. I dislike the "Yeah, right on dude, me too!" school of blogging. Sometimes there is nothing I can add to what my betters (PissedonPolitics, DailyKos, Firedoglake, etc.) have written. The other part is to prod the holier-than-thou assholes who actually want to start a world war complete with nuclear holocaust because they think it will hasten the coming of their particular messiah. The exercise has the added incentive of allowing me to study human history because, when you strip away the wizardry in it, religion is a study of the histories of human societies.

While my first several posts will focus on Christianity, that is mostly because I know its hypocrisies more throughly (the result of attending Methodist Sunday School as a child). I shall be taking a swing at all of the major and minor religions. Except Voodooism; being turned into a zombie would suck.

Campaign Contributions=Bribery - Proof #1844

Bush judges Gene Pratter and Mark Filip have apparently bought their way onto the Federal bench with campaign contributions to George W. Bush. The only thing sadder that the fact that judgeships are for sale by the Bush Administration is that they are selling cheaply, just a few thousand dollars.

Stupid Debate Questions

I am fed up with the presidential "debates." They are not debates by any rational definition of the word. They are a cross between a serial press conference and the quiz show "Are You Smarter Than A Fifth Grader." Some of the sillier questions have been:

• What do you dislike most about America? (Yeah, I'm running for president because I hate America.)
  
• Grade the Iraq War. (Wars are not high schools exams.)
• What is your greatest weakness? (Like I'd tell you.)
• Who would you support [for president] other than you? (Well, there's Abraham Lincoln but I hear he's dead.)
• How would you, Senator Obama, respond to the criticism that you aren’t black enough, and you, Senator Clinton, to the criticism you aren’t feminine enough? (Obama: Should I start wearing shoe polish on my face? Clinton: I've got the breasts and a vagina, what more do I need?)
• Did you see a UFO? (No, but I once saw a housefly. House...fly...Flying house...Get it?)
• Do you prefer diamonds or pearls? (I like quiet walks in the moonlight a sipping a good Cabernet by the firelight.)
  

That last outrage came from the audience at last night's CNN Democratic debate. We learn today that the question was planted by CNN. The woman wanted to ask a question about dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain but CNN wanted to wrap the "debate" with a laugh line so they made her embarrass herself with that inane question. We have learned from this that all of the audience questions last night were prescreened and censored by CNN.

These "debates" add nothing to the political discourse. They are crafted to be entertaining and not illuminating. They achieve neither. They are held solely to enhance the marketability of the third-rate talking heads who moderate them. Yes, I'm talking about you Wolf Blitzer and Chris Matthews. They are demeaning to the politicians who participate in them. They are crimes against the American people who are seek to be informed by them and are given only fatuous pablum.

I'd love to see a real presidential debate. A real debate has the candidates alone on the stage discussing the issues in a back and forth. Perhaps there is a referee to insure the rules are followed but, if the debate is between honorable people the referee need never say a word. There are several academic debate formats to choose from.

It will never happen. The self-important children running the various networks would never allow it. The networks only like debates if they can be used to promote their news anchors. The candidates will be afraid of real debates. In a real debate it is impossible to hide behind sloganeering; it is impossible to disguise a slow wit or a dull mind. In a real debate the Johnny-one-note candidates would be quickly revealed. I am left trying to imagine which of the candidate would do best in a real debate and voting accordingly.

My previous views.

Gonzo's Legal Defense

I'm feeling generous today. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales' cronies have established a legal defense trust (pdf of the donation form) to accept bribes and gifts to keep the little weasel out of a federal pen. I feel sorry for poor Gonzo.

I have written a check to the amount of 1 cent to his defense fund. Sure, it is more than he is worth but, hey, it's nearly Christmas. I haven't mailed it yet (1 cent is one thing, but 41 of them for postage is a whole different kettle of Gitmo Stew). Still, it's the thought that counts, right?