The Beasties
"Ill Communication" is one of my favorite rap albums, and I have to admit that list is shamefully short. So if I can I'll check out their newest release, the first since "Hello Nasty" 6 years ago. David Segal has a review in the Washington Post that considers the daunting task of rapping into middle-age, and says that the Beastie Boys have decided to embrace it, not fake it.

How many kids, for instance, will grasp the origins of "I've got billions and billions of rhymes to flex / Cause I've more rhymes than Carl Sagan's got turtlenecks"? And how many will understand the meaning of "On a track so slick it'll make you feel all queasy / Make you do like Fred Sanford with 'I'm coming, Weezy!' "? (And how many will spot the blooper: Weezy was the wife in "The Jeffersons," not to be confused with Fred Sanford's deceased wife, Elizabeth, on "Sanford and Son.")

There are plenty of allusions to vintage entertainment: the movie "Being There," the original "Star Trek" series, "Diff'rent Strokes." Even some relatively ancient commercials get name-checked. On "Rhyme the Rhyme Well" everyone hushes after this line: "Shhhhh. You heard me like I'm E.F. Hutton."

When artists grow older without continuing to innovate, it can be a bad scene. We'll see how BB make out--sounds like they're trying to walk that line with some semblance of integrity.

Be still my heart
The rational side of me says this is a horrible political idea, and will never happen (because it's a horrible idea), but Kos says there are increased, though still small rumors about a Kerry-Dean ticket, partly because of a new Zogby poll, which says Kerry-Dean would fare slightly better than Kerry-Gephardt (nothing shocking there; why not compare with Kerry-Edwards?) It sounds like Kerry knows he needs to create a spark with his choice, and with McCain firmly out of the picture, who does that leave?

On the other hand, I'm not sold on the "spark" theory anyhow. Can somebody tell me the last time we had a Vice-President with a considerably more dynamic personality than the President? I just don't know. I think people prefer to see a VP who's solid and stable, or young and full of promise, like maybe Edwards. Neither would exactly be Dean's public persona at this point.

Still, the Governor's everywhere..on CNN, Fox and MSNBC once a week, morning shows, radio interviews. You can read his newest interview, with Business Week, here.

Spare Time
Guess who?

"Night after night for years he's been slipping out of the headquarters of the vast right-wing conspiracy, wolfing down spy novels and then reviewing them for Amazon.com. So prolific and proficient has he been at this pursuit that he has attained the coveted title Amazon Top 500 Reviewer. . . .To earn this honor, [he] wrote 137 reviews, which were deemed "helpful" by 2,002 people."

Are we still paying for some monthly pension for him?

Bush and the "Proud Tradition" of the Southern Baptists
President Bush stopped courting Catholic guilt long enough to foment evangelical fervor yesterday, when he spoke live via satellite to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting. Most of it was predictable abortion/gay marriage/God-loves-low-taxes stuff. But my favorite moment was a seemingly benign remark right up front....

"Laura and I are also thankful for your prayers. I have felt them at crucial hours. Your convention has a proud tradition going back to your first gathering in Augusta, Georgia almost 160 years ago. You represent more than 16 million Southern Baptists and congregations all across our country, and many others who serve as missionaries far from home."

How about that meeting in Augusta in 1845? How did it come about? The Northern-based Baptist Home Mission Society had begun turning down slaveholders that wanted to take their, uh, love of different cultures into the field of church missions. Baptists in the South, wanting to uphold the dignity of the institution of slavery in the face of such discrimination, decided to establish their own Baptist body, because sometimes when your religion conflicts with your lifestyle it's easier to change your religion. That first meeting in Georgia organized just such a body, so slave holders could do the evangelical work of God with impunity, and with a support network of resources...the Southern Baptist Convention.

Though you wouldn't know it from their present state, the Convention does actually have a proud tradition, but just like it doesn't extend to the present day, it also sure as hell doesn't go back 160 years. What an odd thing for a President of the United States to say.

In January, 4 of the major predominantly African-American Baptist Conventions will meet together in Nashville, in a meeting that will be larger than the SBC meeting. I'm hoping that it will be President Kerry's first visit to Music City, but do you think a re-elected President Bush will bother to make a similar speech to this group? Tradition not proud enough?

Krugman on Ashcroft
Because the month has been so Reaganific, shamefully little attention has been paid to an event that should have been devastating to Ashcroft: his unbelievable hearing before the Judiciary committee last week, his first in more than a year, in which he both refused to turn over an official memo and refused to even try to cite a reason, in contempt of congress (luckily the Wash. Post got its hands on a copy...warning, lengthy pdf). The highlight of that C-Span insomniac special (I know, I have a problem)was Senator Leahy's recounting of the Attorney General's tenure to date. It's a beauty and worth a read.

Now that there's maybe a chance the media will change subjects (and if Clinton will stay out of the way for a minute), Krugman is picking up the echoes of this recent misbehavior by our Attorney General in a tamer, but strong, piece skewering that horrible public servant:

"First, there's the absence of any major successful prosecutions. The one set of convictions that seemed fairly significant — that of the "Detroit 3" — appears to be collapsing over accusations of prosecutorial misconduct. (The lead prosecutor has filed a whistle-blower suit against Mr. Ashcroft, accusing him of botching the case. The Justice Department, in turn, has opened investigations against the prosecutor. Payback? I report; you decide.)

Then there is the lack of any major captures. Somewhere, the anthrax terrorist is laughing. But the Justice Department, you'll be happy to know, is trying to determine whether it can file bioterrorism charges against a Buffalo art professor whose work includes harmless bacteria in petri dishes.

Perhaps most telling is the way Mr. Ashcroft responds to criticism of his performance. His first move is always to withhold the evidence. Then he tries to change the subject by making a dramatic announcement of a terrorist threat."

You know how Microsoft is always tipping off hackers with their constant security updates? I like the idea that if you want to monitor Ashcroft's blunders, you needn't investigate, just wait for one of his security alerts/indictment press conferences and work backwards.

Michael Moore Campaign
Kos is urging people to contact theater owners and urge them to show the Michale Moore movie (in response to the negative campaigns attempting to persuade them not to show). He has a list of email addresses.

Wanna know if and when the movie is playing near you? Check out this cool site: http://www.f911tix.com/

The Pope as Kingmaker?
Not much time today to have many thoughts, much less express them, but here's what I'm reading/thinking about. Tell me what you think. Why is it not a bigger story, indeed scandal, that Bush is going to the Vatican for election help? Is this really a conscious Rove-led-effort to use Pope/bishop leverage, to expand the ranks of the religious right via...I dunno.. Catholic guilt? And could it possibly work?
NYTimes story here.
Kevin Drum commentary here.
Josh Marshall has his say here.

Nader Supporters
Arizona looks to be a swing state in November, so it was especially disappointing to hear that Nader just turned in his signatures to get on the ballot there. But, he might not make it. Democratic officials there are poring over his list and throwing out tons who are not registered names. But the most interesting thing is: of the 3600 good names so far, 1500 belong to registered Republicans.

The Last Word
Kevin Drum has the last word (far as I'm concerned) on the Reagan/George W parallel, putting Ronnie, finally on his proper pedestal. {and, wait, this cartoon does a masterful job as well}

"And lying about torture or WMDs? It's almost vulgar. Reagan told lies like that too, but he went further, routinely answering questions by telling us that, say, most pollution was caused by trees. Or that South Africa had eliminated segregation. Or that the Contras were the equivalent of America's founding fathers. There's a sort of ethereal majesty to these kinds of statements that removes them from the earthbound realm of mere cluelessness and makes them the stuff of legends.

So, yes, both Bush and Reagan are conservatives, they both loved tax cuts and tough talk, and they both had ranches and wore cowboy hats. But Bush would never dare tell us that most pollution is caused by trees. He just wouldn't have the vision or the guts."

RIP. Now, 4 1/2 months to figure out how to get Kerry elected.

Kerry segues
Kerry had no choice, of course, but to suspend campaign activities for a week. It demonstrated some respect, but also nobody would have paid him any attention anyway. I'm glad to hear, this morning in the weekly Democratic address, that our candidate is back on message, picking up a point that aligns him with the Reagans, and against the President. From cnn.com:

"'Chances are that you love someone with such a disease [Alzheimer's],' Sen. John Kerry said in the Democrats weekly radio address after suspending his campaign for a week to honor Reagan. 'You may be that someone ...

We must lift the barriers that stand in the way of science and push the boundaries of medical exploration so that researchers can find the cures that are there, if only they are allowed to look.'

Nancy Reagan, the former president's wife of 52 years, has personally appealed to Bush to drop his opposition to funding new lines of stem cells for research, a position Bush pledged to evangelical Christians who believe that harvesting such cells is immoral.
[SNIP]
Kerry noted that progress has always brought with it ethical arguments -- there was once, he said, a vocal opposition to heart transplants on ethical and moral grounds.

'I know there are ethical issues, but people of goodwill and good sense can resolve them,' he said. 'For I also know the fear that most Americans feel at some point -- the fear of a diagnosis that may take our life or sentence us to a diminished life.'"

And what was the President's topic today in his weekly address? 3 guesses.

Now, they're just making stuff up
I started off slightly annoyed, then pretty tired of it, but now i'm just plain pissed off over Reagan Reagan Reagan on TV. It's not just the volume of coverage (if they weren't doing this, they'd just be cranking out useless Kobe/Scott Peterson stories), and it's not just that they gloss over the unpleasant bits of his tenure. They are just plain making things up that aren't true. And not just the partisan hacks like Peggy Noonan, or George Will (read this, also from Atrios, in your spare time, for more on Will). Here's Russert on Larry King last night(via Atrios):

"One other political point, the Republicans achieved control of the United States Congress for the first time in 70 years, of both houses, under Ronald Reagan."

Now, that's just not true, but of course Larry King didn't question him. One of the reasons I know that it's not true is that Republicans have been yelling for 20 years that the reason we had all those Reagan deficits was not the fault of the President (who merely proposed and signed the budgets...) but the fault of the Democratic congress.

How could Russert say such a stupid thing? Tip O'Neill (whose friendship with Reagan Russert is fond of pointing out) was Speaker for almost all of Reagan's 8 years, with Jim Wright picking up that job for a year or so at the end, and Tom Foley was the speaker from early Bush until the Gingrich revolution in 1994. Democrats had controlled the House, uninterrupted, since 1955 when Gingrich took the post. Republicans did take control of the Senate when Reagan came in in 1981, and kept it until the 86 elections, but Russert went out of his way to speak politics, to associate Reagan with Republican victory (right after discussing Bush/Kerry). Similar to the lie that Reagan left office the most popular President ever (if you said, no, it was Clinton...you were right), this one about congress will no doubt start making the rounds.

Leaving a Legacy
There's a movement afoot to get a new face on the 10 dollar bill. It's not who you think...

Way to go, Bruce
Springsteen defends Gore.

How far have we come?
Andrew Sullivan has a transcript of a news conference with Reagan spokesperson Larry Speakes in 1982, shortly after the CDC announced that AIDS is an epidemic, with 600 cases. Let's not forget, Reagan's get-tough strategy with everyone may have brought back American pride and optimism in some sectors (I'm not even saying that's a bad thing), but he did it through a thinly veiled frame of empowered cultural sadism. It is a tribute to the undeniable victories of the cultural left that such speech is no longer acceptable. Those were not victories alongside, or even despite Reagan, they were victories over him.

I've just about had enough. Read for yourself to remember what 1982 was like.

The greatest web site ever
You might already know about this, but I've just found THE site that has the Internet living up to its potential, bringing communities together. It's the shizzolator. Enter a URL, like article19.blogspot.com or any other, and watch the fun.

Oops

"'Indeed, you will find in these pages clear evidence that we are prevailing in the fight' against global terrorism, Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage said during a celebratory rollout of the report."

Or not. Looks like we hired the Enron accountants to gauge terrorist activities.

Duck Museum
What would the history of art look like if we were all ducks and not humans? See for yourself.

Krugman on Reagan
Watching all the old clips of Reagan I've marveled at one thing: I remember thinking he was quite dim-witted and confrontational. Somehow, compared to W, Reagan looks intelligent and down-right diplomatic. This morning, Krugman points to another area, taxes, where Bush has moved the bar into the realm of the ridiculous, where even Reagan feared to tread.

"Ronald Reagan does hold a special place in the annals of tax policy, and not just as the patron saint of tax cuts. To his credit, he was more pragmatic and responsible than that; he followed his huge 1981 tax cut with two large tax increases. In fact, no peacetime president has raised taxes so much on so many people. This is not a criticism: the tale of those increases tells you a lot about what was right with President Reagan's leadership, and what's wrong with the leadership of George W. Bush.

The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.

The contrast with President Bush is obvious. President Reagan, confronted with evidence that his tax cuts were fiscally irresponsible, changed course. President Bush, confronted with similar evidence, has pushed for even more tax cuts."

UPDATE: David Hasselhoff's Rap Career...It must be true
Earlier I reported the potential tragedy that David Hasselhoff may become a rap superstar. Today's news confirms that he is well on his way. To become legit he's going to need more than just a criminal record, but he's at least addressing that lack. Thanks Deb for the link.

Rumsfeld identifies the problem, admits to ignoring it, concedes defeat, somehow keeps his job.
I know everyone is quoting and linking to stories about Rumsfeld's answer to a question in Singapore yesterday. I'll quote the whole Q and A and link to a DOD transcript of the whole event, if you're interested. It's encouraging that he seems to have such a handle on at least one aspect of the real problem here; it's discouraging that the administration would seem to have admitted having no ability whatsoever in addressing it, hence has made apparently no effort whatsoever to even really think about it. Bold is my frustrated emphasis.

"Question: Mr. Secretary, you mentioned in your presentation from the campaign against global terrorism the importance of preventing a new generation of recruits flowing to the terrorist cause. I wonder if you’re satisfied with the strategy to defeat the national terrorism, is it in fact sufficiently coherent and coordinated to win? In particular, are you satisfied that the coalition’s political warfare operations have gained sufficient traction to prevent new recruits from signing up to the terrorist cause?

Rumsfeld: I’m certain we have not been successful. As the Prime Minister, I forgot whether he mentioned it in his remarks or at the dinner table, but clearly, if the schools that are teaching young folks are teaching them terrorism and suicide bombing and hatred instead of mathematics or science or language or things that can help them become productive members of the society, we’ve got a problem. The world has a problem. And it’s quite clear to me that we do not have a coherent approach to this. I think it’s very difficult for people who are not part of that religion to provide the leadership because what you have is a civil war, a struggle in that religion where a small minority of people are trying to hijack it and to focus it in a way that is hostile to civil society. Not the majority, by any means, but we as free people have not developed the skills to counter that. We’re not focusing on it. We’re focusing on law enforcement, we’re focusing on terrorist networks, we’re focusing on trying to defend against terrorist attacks, but terrorism is simply a technique being used by extremists. It is not the problem in and of itself, it’s a weapon that’s being used.

I love how he flows right from our having no skills in this area, as if it's a direct result of being a "free people," a natural outcome that leaves us incapable, to an admission that we're "not focusing on it," an entirely willful act of priority.

When military experts, like Zinni, criticize the lack of strategic planning in this operation, I assume this is the kind of thing he means. It seems like the military leaders are the only ones that understand problem solving, strategic thinking, and seem the most willing to acknowledge that military force is often not the tool to use, given the problem. What I hear Rumsfeld saying is that we are doing what we know how to do, even though it really doesn't address the problem. I can only assume he keeps his job because that is the outlook of the whole Bush team...

Billmon on Reagan
I have nary an original thought about Reagan's passing. Mostly I'm annoyed that Republicans may have an artificial "win one for the Gipper" rallying cry to help unite them going into November. That's awfully heartless, I know. I do have admiration and sadness for any family that has had to endure that horrible disease for so long. But I can't help thinking that the absence brought on by his illness has made the heart of many Americans grow fonder of Reagan's legacy than it would have if he had been constantly visible, reminding us of his outlook and biases (think Michael Moore's interview with Charlton Heston...).

Billmon believes that impact to be a close relative of the present Administration:

"Looking back, it's also easy to see the propaganda connections between Reagan's war in Central America and the current Orwellian nightmare in Iraq. There were the same moral oversimplications - pure goodness versus absolute evil - the same flowerly rhetoric about freedom and democracy (to be administred to impoverished campesinos with machine guns and torture chambers.) There was the same lurid hype about the dire danger to the homeland - as when Reagan famously warned that Nicaragua was just a "two-day drive from Harlington, Texas."

And of course, we're even looking at some of the same actors - Elliot Abrams, John Negroponte, Colin Powell. To a large degree, the Reagan administration's covert wars in both Central America and the Middle East formed the template for how the war in Iraq was packaged, sold and - unfortunately - fought."

Oh yeah, and there was this little matter of exploding budget deficits thanks to the arms race, the ridiculous STAR WARS plan, and lowering of taxes. Will Reagan's economic legacy ultimately include--thanks to "trickle-down" theories in part--shifting the deficit hawk emphasis from the Republican toward the Democratic Party, a shift still taking place?

Article 19 Film Review
Super Size Me: ************** (14 stars)
Both fun and frightening. Would have gotten more stars if not for a few obvious arguments that were sidestepped, annoying me. Worth a look, and if you eat fast food (or have kids who do) more than once a week, or have kids who eat school "lunches," it's definitely worth making yourself think through. There's a lot of denial going on...

Sacrificing the environment to save the environment?
Kevin Drum has an interesting proposal at the end of his post detailing the oil crunch and its possibly impending explosion. The bad news goes like this:

"As demand has increased, OPEC's spare capacity has gone down from 15 million barrels/day to 5 million barrels/day to today's 2 million barrels/day. This means that even if there aren't any special problems, demand will start to exceed production capacity within a couple of years. And when that happens, prices will go up and stay up. What's more, with virtually no spare capacity around, every little blip in the oil supply will have potentially huge consequences. Stability of supply will become ever more important and American military policy in the Middle East will start to get really nasty.

The proposal is this:

"How about a deal that trades ANWR drilling for higher CAFE standards, for example? Sounds horrible, doesn't it? But it might be a politically feasible trade, and in the end the benefit from higher mileage cars probably vastly outweighs the negatives of another pipeline in Alaska. Consider it food for thought."

Would anyone actually go for this? Does everybody win or does everybody lose? How much higher do the CAFE standards get to be? That's the question that would inform my vote if I had one.

Economy Report
Jobs report is being hailed by both sides as very positive:

"The May tally by the Labor Department exceeded Wall Street's expectations for 216,000 new jobs and followed an upwardly revised total of 346,000 jobs in April and 353,000 in March."

I have to admit I'm surprised that the turn around has seemed to look for real. But Pete Stark reminds us that there is still a job deficit over the last couple of years, and there are plenty of symptoms indicating a tough time for workers, and those looking for work, if you take a longer view (pdf file):

"The prolonged labor market slump has taken its toll on workers’ earnings. Since the first quarter of 2001, aggregate wages and benefits have risen by just 8 percent. Profits, by contrast, have grown by 61 percent.

Overall, there are 8.2 million unemployed Americans, and about 4.7 million additional workers who want a job but are not counted among the unemployed. An additional 4.7 million people work part-time because of the weak economy. The unemployment rate would be nearly 10 percent if the figure included those who want to work but are not counted among the unemployed and those who are forced to work part-time because of the weak economy.

More than one in every five unemployed people – 1.8 million Americans – has been jobless for more than 26 weeks. The average spell of unemployment is 20 weeks, and remains at a level not seen since early 1984."

Republicans are using the short-view good news to justify a refusal to extend unemployment benefits. But the unemployment rate remains at 5.6% clearly there are many, many willing and able people who are unable to find work.

Fahrenheit 9/11 Trailer
Trailer for the new Michael Moore film is here. Worth a watch...I can't wait for the release. This link takes you to a Quicktime version, but you can select Windows Media once you're there if that works better for you.

State Trivia Quiz
Which state is the most wired (most households with Internet access) in the country? 3 guesses. I would have failed this quiz miserably. Click here for the answer, and to read an appeal from the Democratic candidate in the hotly contested Senate race in that state.

Baby!
Congrats Doug and Abby. My hospital correspondent tells me that Celia Frances and mother are doing fine. Wow the Article 19 family has added 2 new ones since this blog started. Who's next? Mark?

Bush on Tenet
Tenet's gone as CIA Director.
Strike #1: Woops! How did India and Pakistan get those nuclear weapons?
Strike #2: September 11, 2001
Strike #3: Don't worry. The case for weapons of mass destruction is a "slam dunk!"

In his typical, artful way as the nation's chief wordsmith, the President had this to say:

"George Tenet is the -- is the kind of public service you like -- servant you like to work with. He's strong. He's resolute. He served his nation as the director for seven years. He has been a strong and able leader at the agency. He's been a -- he's been a strong leader in the war on terror. And I will miss him."

Right or wrong, I have no problem chalking this up to the Al Gore speech. By all accounts, Tenet is a conscientious capable guy (separating him from the others on the Bush team), and I'd like to think that Al's scolding shamed him into quitting. Oh, no, sorry. He wants to spend more time with his family. And here I thought it was because his agency's failures have thrown the whole world into a tailspin. Will the Gore spanking bring down anyone else in the next few weeks? I'm predicting the only other one to go before November will be Ashcroft. That will be the Rove effect, not the Gore effect.

I'm Back
Back home for regular posting. I return to find 2 things of interest: Stephanie Herseth has helped the Democrats gain a seat in the house in a special election in South Dakota, although she must face off against the same Republican candidate in November, so it could be short-lived victory and well as a very slight one. In a state in which Bush pounded Gore, this is a nice accomplishment.

But also, there's a fabulous new sport, that might help those young adrenalin-seekers in the house learn to love at least one unsavory chore. Welcome to the world of extreme ironing.

"Budding extreme ironists are advised to start ironing in the safety of their back garden, before progressing to mountainsides, woods or public places. The basic equipment is an iron and board. Ironists are also advised to take full safety equipment such as harnesses, ropes and helmets where appropriate."

Here's a picture.

Law School Graduate!
If I can manufacture a speech transcript I will post it here. He followed former solicitor general Walter Dellinger, and, frankly, in my humble disinterested opinion, Grandmaster K left him in the dust.

Preview
Sorry, blogging is light for a few days while I'm in Beantown for graduation and moving, but I read this story and couldn't help noticing that, while I still am unsure what success in Iraq would look like, what's happening in Fallujah is a damn good picture of what failure looks like. Anyone who wonders how Howard Dean could have said that we can't be sure just yet that Iraqis are better off without Saddam should consider these developments. Our worst nightmare:

"With U.S. Marines gone and central government authority virtually nonexistent, Fallujah resembles an Islamic mini-state - anyone caught selling alcohol is flogged and paraded in the city. Men are encouraged to grow beards and barbers are warned against giving 'Western' hair cuts."

yeaaaaargh.

Al Gore is my President
Since 2000, 3 of the best 4 Democratic speeches have been given by Al Gore (the 4th by Howard Dean to the DNC winter meeting). This one delivered today is true and powerful. This is a man on top of his game, speaking from his heart (even if some of it involves lingering anger over the 2000 election). Link via Atrios.

"How dare the incompetent and willful members of this Bush/Cheney Administration humiliate our nation and our people in the eyes of the world and in the conscience of our own people. How dare they subject us to such dishonor and disgrace. How dare they drag the good name of the United States of America through the mud of Saddam Hussein's torture prison."

Wow is right.

NYT Correction
The Times is looking back to scrutinize their pre-war coverage and has found that--surprise--they were lazy and duped by the rush-to-invasion proponents. But their general self-criticism sounds to me like it could apply to all major press on most any issue:

"Editors at several levels who should have been challenging reporters and pressing for more skepticism were perhaps too intent on rushing scoops into the paper. Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted. Articles based on dire claims about Iraq tended to get prominent display, while follow-up articles that called the original ones into question were sometimes buried. In some cases, there was no follow-up at all."

If this begins a trendy self-evaluation by outlets across the country, then it will be an especially good thing. Is that even possible?

Remote Blogging
The Article 19 team (ok, it's just me) made a trip to Boston today and took in the Red Sox rout of Oakland. This game was notable for being played in sub-freezing temperatures. Or at least that's what it felt like to me. I brought clothes for summer. Who knew? Here's a snapshot from my outfield seat pre-game, using the handy-dandy phone camera. Stevie T, notice how they made Fenway to look just like the lego ballpark we constructed while we had the chicken pox? They look so much alike:

So, what news did I miss from Tuesday? Help me out...

I understand there's something of an apology coming from the New York Times that I'm looking forward to very much, acknowledging their role in perpetuating the Bush lies in the lead up to the Iraq War. Hopefully I'll have time to read it and post about it tomorrow. But if you get to it first, have at it!

Why are Details So Hard?
Do you think they still don't know the details of the June 30 handover, and our relationship with that...entity from that point forward? Or do they know but think we won't like it? Or maybe they're holding out for a last-second miracle?

I got no new info from the Pres earlier tonight. Did I miss the plan? After all this time, I don't know how I can still be gullible, but honest I thought he was actually going to make news, tell us what's going to happen, and how it's going to work. Wouldn't that at least change the subject? He should be for that. Does that tell us that they really have no idea what will happen? Because if they did, it would be smart to get it out there.

Stubborn on Stem Cells
Michael Kinsley has a great, terribly rational piece on the fanatacism implied by opposing stem cell research, as President Bush does, despite the objections of a growing number of Republicans, including Nancy Reagan. In Time Magazine:

"Stamping some issue as controversial can be a substitute for thinking it through. In the case of embryonic-stem-cell research, thinking it through does not require further study or commissions of experts. This is one you can feel free to try at home. In fact, thinking it through is a moral obligation, especially if you are on the side of the argument that wants to stop or slow this research.

It's not complicated. An embryo used in stem-cell research (and fertility treatments) is three to five days past conception. It consists of a few dozen cells that together are too small to be seen without a microscope. It has no consciousness, no self-awareness, no ability to feel love or pain. The smallest insect is far more human in every respect except potential.
[SNIP]
A difficult issue is one in which you hold two or more conflicting values. Stem cells are not a difficult issue: either you think a microscopic embryo has the same human rights as you and I, or you don't. Do you believe that a woman who gets an abortion should be prosecuted for murder, just like a mother who hires a professional killer to off her teenage son? Are you picketing around fertility clinics, which kill hundreds of thousands of unborn children — if that's what you believe a 5-day-old embryo to be — just like abortion clinics do? If so, you are entitled to oppose stem-cell research. If not, please get out of the way."

I quoted too much but it's good stuff.

Strategery
I want Universities to become centers of protest and political engagement again, as much as the next guy, and I would be in total agreement of the content if my graduation speaker used the occasion to criticize President Bush. So there's a part of me that is thrilled that the novelist E.L. Doctorow decided to do just that at the Hofstra University commencement. But, these days I'm kind of into winning. It's pretty much become essential. That's going to require a little persuasion. And I'm more and more convinced that protests of this sort are usually counter-productive. It would seem that "undecided," non-partisan types do not enjoy the confrontation. Indeed, Doctorow was roundly booed, making the entire event, apparently, quite unpleasant. No doubt, those same persuadable voters will blame the speaker for introducing the controversial topic at such an event, and not the booers for causing a scene.

It may feel good to vent in front of a crowd, and they may even need to hear it. But it feels like a losing strategy; I doubt you convince a single person that way. Am I wrong about this? Or doth we protest too much?

The Genius General
From a post about one brave General (Zinni) on to another. General JC Christian, patriot, is writing letters again. I'm laughing too hard to be able to decide which is better, his letter to Iranian Ambassador to the US, Pirooz Hosseini or the one to James Dobson. So there are links to both.

Voice of Military Integrity
Anthony Zinni is the former head of US Central Command, from 1997-2000. This is what he told 60 Minutes tonight about the planning and performance of this Iraq War:

"I think there was dereliction in insufficient forces being put on the ground and (in not) fully understanding the military dimensions of the plan. If you're the secretary of defense and you're responsible for that. If you're responsible for that planning and that execution on the ground. If you've assumed responsibility for the other elements, non-military, non-security, political, economic, social and everything else, then you bear responsibility,
[SNIP}
Certainly those in your ranks that foisted this strategy on us that is flawed. Certainly they ought to be gone and replaced...If I were the commander of a military organization that delivered this kind of performance to the president, I certainly would tender my resignation. I certainly would expect to be gone..."

There is a new kind of cover-up infecting this scandal of a War: one based in total, absolute denial, both of respsonsibility, and of even the slightest acknowledgement that the plan has failed. It will take more experienced voices like Zinni's, telling the truth, to undo this cover-up by making its claim to fact roundly and convincingly ridiculed. That so many are willing to perpetuate the myth that the plan is working, and progress is being made, makes this cover-up a blight on our nation's history. The plan and rationale for this War were both mistakes, but the insistence on "staying the course" to cover their own back-sides is shameful.

If his new statements stick and make any news, look for Zinni to receive the Bush/Rove attack treatment. We'll hear of his political leanings, his sketchy abilities in his former position, etc. I say: more like Zinni please.

Wow
[UPDATE: Cannes jury defends itself here.]
I'm shocked, but the Tarantino-led Cannes jury has given the top prize, the Palme D'or, to Michael Moore's new film. From the I'm-kind-of-skeptical department, Moore was assured that agreeing or disagreeing with the politics of the film played no role in the award:

"The Cannes recognition of 'Fahrenheit 9/11', he (Moore) said, 'will ensure that the American people will see this movie'. 'I don't know what impact it will have' on the elections, he told journalists, but 'these people (Bush and his officials) have been out of control from the get-go and we as Americans have been responsible for letting that happen'.
[SNIP]
Moore said Tarantino whispered to him on stage, telling him: 'We want you to know that the politics of your film had nothing to do with this award, we are not here to give a political award, on this jury we have different politics and some of us have no politics -- you were given this award because you made a great film.'

I hope he's right that this will help us get the chance to see it. No documentary has won the award in almost 50 years. And reviews I've read seem to agree that, while powerful, it's not as well-made as "Bowling for Columbine."

Also, Frank Rich, who is not a film reviewer but an opinion writer, shares his thoughts on the film in today's NYT.

Fresh Meat from the Department of Irony
Via Talking Points Memo, a choice cut from President Bush's graduation speech at LSU, this morning:

"On the job and elsewhere in life, choose your friends carefully. The company you keep has a way of rubbing off on you -- and that can be a good thing, or a bad thing. In my job, I got to pick just about everybody I work with. (Laughter.)"

Insert Dick Cheney, Ahmed Chalabi, Ken Lay, or other joke here.

Hornby on Music
In today's Times, Nick Hornby (author of "High Fidelity," "About a Boy," "How to be Good") expresses some wistful worries about music of today. There are similar themes to some we've discussed before. His perspective is interesting. I can't help but wonder if it's the man, and not the music, approaching the fork in the road. Here's a bit:

"I understand that I run the risk of being seen as yet another nostalgic old codger complaining about the state of contemporary music. And though it's true that I'm an old codger, and that I'm complaining about the state of contemporary music, I hope that I can wriggle out of the hole I'm digging for myself by moaning that, to me, contemporary rock music no longer sounds young — or at least, not young in that kind of joyous, uninhibited way. In some ways, it became way too grown-up and full of itself. You can find plenty that's angry, or weird, or perverse, or melancholy and world-weary; but that loud, sometimes dumb celebration of being alive has got lost somewhere along the way. Of course we want to hear songs about Iraq, and child prostitution, and heroin addiction. And if bands see the need to use electric drills instead of guitars in order to give vent to their rage, well, bring it on. But is there any chance we could have the Righteous Brothers' "Little Latin Lupe Lu" — or, better still, a modern-day equivalent — for an encore?"

There's more to his piece than just this concern. If you're a music-lover, and over 27 (and I know you all are), it's worth a read.

Gangstas make mistakes too
Dear Ice-T,

You have always been straight up. Hard core. The pimp of all pimps. You rocked the world with "Cop Killer." You kicked butt acting in "New Jack City." But I beg you...if you must make a rap artist out of a middle-aged white celebrity, please take Harry Connick, Jr., or John Travolta; maybe Rod Stewart is still looking for new things, or you know that David Caruso has some edge. But please, please, I'm desperate here. I'll never think of you the same way again if you actually decide to do this with....David Hasselhoff.

"Rap legend Ice-T is risking his massive reputation on his latest recruit - middle-aged former beach bum David Hasselhoff. The original gangsta believes he can turn the ex-Baywatch star into hip hop's next big thing. Ice and Hasselhoff, 51, are neighbours in Los Angeles and have struck up a close friendship.

The rapper - real name Tracey Morrow - told The Sun: 'The man is a legend, we are going to show a whole new side of him. He's gonna come out as Hassle the Hoff. The Hoff will surprise people with his rap skills and humour.'"

Ice...say it ain't so.

Don't Worry. We Pick Good Friends
From the White House transcript of Bush's remarks today:

"I discussed with the Cabinet the plans of Mr. Brahimi, the U.N. representative who is consulting with Iraqi leadership and Iraqi citizenry, as well as our own government officials there about the interim government and who will occupy the positions of responsibility in that government. I anticipate in the next couple of weeks decisions will be made toward who will be the president and the vice presidents, as well as the prime minister and other ministers."

I wonder if we'll name someone we like as much as we liked Ahmed Chalabi. 5 months ago, Bush had Chalabi as a guest at the State of the Union. He was, apparently the White House/Pentagon choice to run the country. They liked listening to him because he told us there were lots of weapons, and that the people of Iraq couldn't wait to rise up and help us overthrow Saddam, and shower us with praise and thanks. We liked hearing stuff like that so we believed it (that's the Bush truth-criteria).

But then Chalabi admitted to playing us for a fool to get rid of Hussein, (apparently the Pentagon motto of intelligence-sifting is: "ahh, trust him. Why would he just make stuff up?"), and it turns out he may be in cahoots with Iran, so today we raided his house. That should teach him. And anyone else who takes our friendships for granted. Come to think of it, isn't Saddam Hussein a former friend? I wonder what kind of great friends we'll have on June 30, what that will end up costing us, and how long it will take to turn against them? Any bets?

[NOTE: This post has been edited for having so many facts wrong...D'oh!]

I just do not believe this news is the truth
Via Pandagon comes this abstinence education success story:

"A German couple who went to a fertility clinic after eight years of marriage have found out why they are still childless - they weren't having sex."

Somehow this story made a news wire, but really, it can't be true right? Someone is having a laugh--just not sure who. Sex is like, uh, natural or something right? At least that's what I hear. Also, it's all over TV...plus friends tend to mention it. I mean, there's no way this story is on the level, is there?

Who's Winning? Part 1 of 2
Kevin Drum and Matt Yglesias are taking a step back, wondering what conservatives really have to show for their rise to prominence from Reagan/Bush/Bush White House years to a Republican-controlled congress. Matt rebuts the notion that they have won any substantive victories:

"The largest Johnson-era anti-poverty program, Medicaid, is still with us, as is Medicare for senior citizens, which has only grown more generous (most recently, via a bill passed almost exclusively with Republican votes) since it's creation. Social Security, the centerpiece of the New Deal welfare state, is likewise more generous than it was in 1964. The federal government plays a larger role in funding education than it did in 1964 (and, again, it's role has gotten even larger under the Bush-DeLay regime). Abortion, illegal in 1964, is now legal, anti-sodomy laws were eliminated in the recent past, and today we have gay and lesbian couples getting married in Massacusetts..."

And Kevin concurs with more evidence of our triumph:

"Have they eliminated any departments of the federal government? No. Cut back entitlement programs? No. Increased the size of the military? No. Reduced the size of government? No. Outlawed abortion? Restricted gay rights? Brought back prayer in schools? No, no, and no. In fact, just the opposite for most of these things.

Among major conservative causes, then, the only thing left is tax cuts...

But, letting alone the fact that liberals have, with a few exceptions (family leave, and the ADA come to mind), been reduced to playing defense all that time, the advances of the conservative movement, and the declines of the liberal movement, have been much more pronounced than that.

It is true, some social safety net programs have become essentially untouchable. But 3 accomplishments by the Right should leave us in a less celebratory mood, and are taking a slow, decimating toll:

First is the shift that has occurred in the financial burden of those same programs--from people that can afford to bear it toward people that can't. Relative to inflation, minimum wage has never been lower, the cost of raising a family has never been higher, and the local tax burden has shifted the cost of federal requirements squarely on the backs of working, middle and lower-middle class Americans. As a result, the gap between the wealthiest 25% and the poorest 25% of us has never been wider. Kevin says only their tax-cut rhetoric remains, but those tax philosophies are affecting, and will continue to affect those very programs he's glad to have merely kept. The problem is not that those programs might disappear, it's that the majority of working people will nearly drown trying to keep them afloat with adequate funds.

Second, is that conservatives have convinced the Democrats that giving corporations essentially whatever they ask for is the only way they will be elected. In so doing, they've created a silent, false war between business interests and the interests of the workers and consumers that keep businesses running; silent because there's no longer a major party committed to fighting the many tentacles of the beast we might call the corporate lobby; false because the interests of business and of workers is not an opposition at all. The conservative victory is in defining an interest ("business") in a way that benefits a very few in a huge way, on the lie that it will benefit everyone. There's nothing antithetical to the interests of the economy in continuing to grow and secure a strong working middle-class, but Reublicans and most Democrats have bought into the idea that our economic interest is nearly synonymous with bottom-line corporate interest.

Third, and maybe worst of all, the Conservative movement has done here at home what they are too arrogant to accomplish in foreign policy: they've won the battle for hearts and minds. Liberals can't even use that label on themselves, the federal government is seen as the enemy--an incompetent institution, inferior to "business" in managing money, inferior to religion in providing relief, inferior to local government in looking out for our interests. I understand that America was born on a healthy mistrust of governmental tyranny--this is nothing new--but the recent surge of conservatism has invigorated a hatred of Washington that has sterilized the Democrats (devastated them in the South), and given Republicans the platform for performing all the tax/business misdeeds that have left the working middle class shrinking and the working poor growing.

Amid all this, they have convinced the media and the electorate to focus on hot-button social issues. And it's true we've won most of those battles, barely. Abortion rights, some advances in gay rights, some public health victories, defeating most school voucher attempts, and that pesky flag-burning amendment. But in the meantime, while our arms have been upraised, our government has rewired the economy and rewritten the tax code. The drain on working Americans now funnels almost directly to corporate interests, in a lie that's sold as essential to the health of the American economy.

And did I mention that foreign relations have been a bit....strained under Republican rule?

Kevin and Matt may feel some victory. And I may just be in a glass-half-empty mood, but I feel more like the wool's been pulled over our eyes. High-profile conservative defeats have come at the expense of letting them successfully change the subject. If it weren't for the nut-job religious right wing of the Conservative movement (some see them as the base; I see them as the ball-and-chain) riling Democrats, we'd be totally getting our butts kicked.

In his fabulous, inspiring book "Achieving Our Country," controversial philosopher Richard Rorty warns that if they keep on this track--celebrating social, hot-button victories while selling working Americans down the river with pro-corporation economic policies--Democrats will wake up one day to find that some hate-monger Pat Buchanan type is the people's champion.

More on that in "who's winning, Part 2" sometime later this week...

Military Force Emergency
I don't like merely copying the topics of other blogs--but when a single issue graces the top of my 3 most regular reads (Kos, Atrios, Washington Monthly), it's probably worth discussion. When you enlist in the armed forces and complete your active service (sounds like most enlist for 3 or 4 year terms), you are automatically placed on "inactive reserve" status. You are assured you will be called up only in the event of emergency. Now, the Pentagon is apparently using the IRS to track down inactive reservists, a move many think spells the last step before implementation of a draft. These are the last folks they can presently compel.

How long will it take to go from decision to implementation of a draft? Wouldn't it take more than flipping a switch to get those wheels turning? Does that mean--like with the Iraq War itself--a decision has already been made, well ahead of admitting it? I know that we know some draft age young men...do we know any inactive reservists?

Kos has more info; Washington Monthly is skeptical this means draft, and provides this picture; and all of this comes from an initial post from Tapped.

Marry
How can you see the pictures of same-sex marriages happening today in MA and not be thrilled? I will not have a second thought until someone can give me one good reason why it might be damaging to the institution. Then, I'll need to hear why it's more damaging than the farce our beloved Britney Spears made out of it. Even then, I will not likely be convinced, stubborn one that I am, but it would be a start.

It's not quite Brown v. Board of Education, but it's fitting for that anniversary and this milestone to come together. Hopefully, that coincidence will not fuel more competition among the oppressed. The tension between the Jewish community and the African-American, like that between African-American and gay community, is not one I really have ever understood.

But today, let's raise a drink to progress. Today, devotion and love and the secure embrace of family have found a new home of honor. It is not a step forward for gays and lesbians, who are no strangers to devotion or love; it is a step forward for everyone else, meeting them in an improved America, more true to herself today than yesterday.

Well, at least in Massachussetts. Let's hope it plays well on TV.

Nice new poll
I'm going to try to post about things unrelated to Bush/war/atrocities over the next couple of days to give everyone, including me, a break. It's kind of gut-wrenching, no? And, you're probably wondering how many more ways there really are to say that Bush stinks and we need to vote him out. So hopefully my other thoughts, some related to politics, some not, will still manage to provide some interest and conversation. Of course, circumstances may keep me from being able to avoid the shenanigans of the shrub.

But I leave the Bush-talk with some very encouraging news: there's a new Ohio poll out (Bush won Ohio in 2000): Kerry 49, Bush 42, Nader 2. I'm starting to wonder where the bottom is in terms of hard-core partisan support for Bush. It can't be much lower than 42.

Grading is today so posting will be light for a day or 2(the grading, the celebrating, the recuperating from the celebrating..), so in the meantime, scroll on down to the post about Emmitt Till and tell us all where your dedication to civil rights comes from. I know more of you than just Judith has a story to tell there and I'd love to read it. And plenty of posts below to continue discussion about the war/prison/berg/female soldiers/milgram experiments if you can't get that story off your brain. Not sure I'll be successful myself.

OK one more somewhat Bush-related thing, but I can't resist because this is so very interesting.

More Change
Votes are being counted in the world's largest democracy, India. Looks like people there are shocking predictors by voting in the opposition party...just like France, and Spain before that.

Could I know less about this? As my Magic 8-ball might say, "signs point to no." But it's still interesting. Also seems to mean that if your name is Gandhi, you're never out of an Indian election.

[UPDATE: It's official.

"'Basically it is the anger of the working class,' said Sawali Rai, 34, who works in a public sector bank. 'Privatization, no government jobs, prices rising. On the pressure of the World Bank they are pressuring the common man.' And unlike in the United States, where the most prosperous also vote the most, in India it is the poor who turn out in greatest numbers."

Wouldn't that be nice?]

Friedman is Right
I'm not always a big fan of the NYT's Friedman, but after more than a year of believing that great things could come from this war, he's finally done giving W a chance to do things the right way. It's a good read:

"I thought the administration would have to do the right things in Iraq — from prewar planning and putting in enough troops to dismissing the secretary of defense for incompetence — because surely this was the most important thing for the president and the country. But I was wrong. There is something even more important to the Bush crowd than getting Iraq right, and that's getting re-elected and staying loyal to the conservative base to do so. It has always been more important for the Bush folks to defeat liberals at home than Baathists abroad. That's why they spent more time studying U.S. polls than Iraqi history.
[SNIP]
And, of course, why did the president praise Mr. Rumsfeld rather than fire him? Because Karl Rove says to hold the conservative base, you must always appear to be strong, decisive and loyal. It is more important that the president appear to be true to his team than that America appear to be true to its principles. (Here's the new Rummy Defense: 'I am accountable. But the little guys were responsible. I was just giving orders.')

Add it all up, and you see how we got so off track in Iraq, why we are dancing alone in the world — and why our president, who has a strong moral vision, has no moral influence."

Why do I fear that more people will be swayed by the despicable editorial in New York's other paper?

Cost-Benefit Considerations
Link #1:

"May 12, 2004

Dear Mr. Speaker:

I ask the Congress to consider the enclosed FY 2005 budget amendment to establish a $25 billion contingent emergency reserve fund to support operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Although we do not know the precise costs for operations next year, developments on the ground in Iraq indicate the need to plan for contingencies. We plan to pursue a full FY 2005 supplemental request when we can better estimate precise costs. In the meantime, this reserve fund will ensure that our men and women in uniform continue to have the resources they need when they need them.

I have pledged to our troops that they will have all the resources they need to accomplish this vital mission, and I urge the Congress to approve this reserve fund.
[SNIP]
Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

Link #2, A new CBS Poll

Just 29 percent -- the lowest figure so far in CBS News Polls -- say the result of the war in Iraq has been worth the cost in lives and money. Almost two-thirds say it has not been worth it.

Female in Photos Speaks Out
Link
[My internal lie detector, not especially known for its accuracy, responds with its wobbly intuition in brackets]

"Army Pfc. Lynndie England, seen worldwide in photographs that show her smiling and pointing at naked Iraqi prisoners, said she was ordered to pose for the photos [I believe it], and felt "kind of weird" in doing so [maybe she did at first].

In an exclusive interview with Brian Maass of Denver CBS station KCNC-TV, England also confirmed that abuses worse than those depicted in the photos were carried out at the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad [I believe it], but she declined to discuss them.

England, 21, repeatedly insisted that her actions were dictated by "persons in my higher chain of command." [I believe it, although it sounds like there's going to be some disagreement over the chain of command, so those ordering her may not have actually had legitimate authority over her]

I was instructed by persons in higher rank to stand there and hold this leash [I can believe it]and look at the camera," [that part sounds fishy] she said.

England said the actions depicted in the photos were intended to put psychological pressure on the Iraqi prisoners. [I believe it]

"Well, I mean, they [the photos] were for psy-op reasons," she said "And the reasons worked. I mean, so to us, we were doing our job, which meant we were doing what we were told, and the outcome was what they wanted. They'd come back and they'd look at the pictures, and they'd state, 'Oh, that's a good tactic, keep it up. That's working. This is working. Keep doing it. It's getting what we need.'"[I believe it}

Which parts are believable to your detector?

Show Your Support of the President!
A Wisconsin paper has developed a serious editorial dilemma, I'm guessing brought on by the loss of over 70,000 jobs in that state from Jan. 2001 until now:

"We’ve been getting more letters critical of President Bush than those that support him. We’re not sure why, nor do we want to guess. But in today’s increasingly polarized political environment, we would prefer our offering to put forward a better sense of balance.

Since we depend upon you, our readers, to supply our letters, that goal can be difficult. We can’t run letters that we don’t have.
[SNIP]
If you would like to help us “balance” things out, send us a letter, make a call or punch out an e-mail."

The opportunity to help them was pointed out by Jesus' General, a fabulous blog specializing in beautiful, pro-Republican, pro-heterosexual, 100% sarcastic call-to-arms letters from a Christian perspective.

Below is my attempt at answering the call, showing my support of President Bush. I know you can do better--here's the form. If you write one, please copy your letter in the comments so we can all read.

"Dear Editor,
Thank you for the invitation to show my support for President George W. Bush! Just think how far our country has come since the days when the evil one (Bill Clinton) and his hippie staff wore their blue jeans on Air Force One. Back then, we had all that extra money, there were too many jobs out there to choose from, the stock market was boring to watch because it only went up (no drama!), and our military boys hardly got to shoot at anyone. I mean, come on, no excitement.

Enter W. He knew why we had all those surpluses: too much tax money coming in! And he knew why we weren't doin no shooting: we weren't even at war (Duh!).

When he's not on extended vacations, George W. has brought honor and dignity back to the oval office, and sent all the Clintonian deviant sex stuff out of there and back where it belongs: into the low-morale world of an untrained, unregulated, overworked military, to try out their crazy experiments on Arabs in our new gestapo-like prisons all over the Muslim world. Thank you Mr. President!

Don B
Article 19"

Not a Religious War
Remember that guy....the General, Boykin, who, in full military gear spoke in church about how "our God" was superior to the Muslim God, and that proving that was part of what we're doing in Iraq, the guy who said Bush was made President by God?

Remember, the President had to go back and remind everyone that *wink-wink* this is not a religious war? The we-don't-really-think-we're-superior-to-all-Muslims argument the Bush Administration and the Pentagon tried so hard to peddle in the early march to war was kind of under-cut by Lt. Gen. Boykin, wouldn't you say?

So in this search for responsibility we're in the middle of right now - to figure out who it was that was in charge of defining methods of interrogation, and chains of command in that process, it would look pretty bad if it turned out that this same Boykin "briefed a top Pentagon civilian official last summer on recommendations on ways military interrogators could gain more intelligence from Iraqi prisoners," wouldn't it?

Random Monday afternoon thoughts
--There may be yet another attempt to bring up the anti-choice consitutional amendment up for a vote in the TN House late this afternoon. I'm proud to say at least it's a Republican bringing it up this time, trying to bypass the committee vote with a 2/3 majority in the full house. You don't want to know how close that will be. But it's something I'm keeping my eye out for and will update here.
[UPDATE: REPRIEVE--Only able to muster a paltry 53 of 99 House members to vote to change the constitution with an anti-choice provision (66 were required), the effort to bypass the subcommittee and bring the measure to the full state House failed. The bad news is that in a chamber controlled by Democrats there were 53 votes for this nonsense, but no matter now. The earliest this could now go to the people for a referendum is estimated to be 2010]

--Bob Mould has a blog! I guess when you're famous you can blog about how you spend your day, your allergies, etc. But it's pretty interesting at times - I did a quick scroll-through. And you'll notice he chose the same template I did. So we'll add that to the list of things we have in common.

--I don't know how often he's right, but Mr. Zogby himself is predicting a Kerry victory.

Justice or Politics?

Note to Web Searchers (I get alot of hits from people searching for Till Photos because of this post, so I've edited to help) Here is a great site that tells the entire crime story chapter by chapter, and it includes one chapter, here, that has a funeral photo.]

Probably the first time I developed a truly emotional attachment to the civil rights movement, the first time I actually woke up about it and it was real to me was watching the PBS documentary Eyes on the Prize. I stumbled on it by accident but managed to catch the beginning of the first episode and then watched it every night, and thought about little else in between.

I had heard Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech in elementary school and Junior High, and could recite facts about the Abolitionist movement, about the significant African-American contribution to American culture (I think I did a February report on George Washington Carver 3 years in a row--4th-6th grade--because I like peanut butter), and about the segregated south. But Dr. King didn't make me tear up until Eyes on the Prize, when I got to see the whole story.

And the one moment I remember from that 6 or 8-hour long documentary more than anything else is a name I never heard in school (until college): Emmett Till. I had never seen anything like the funeral of Emmett Till. Ever. Once you see that, you can feel the fury the trial of his killers brings. And once you feel that, you can shutter in awe of the grace and dignity with which the civil rights movement embraced, and suffered through, non-violent resistance.

All of that came flooding back to me this morning when I turned on the TV this morning (C-Span already selected, of course) to find, shockingly, that the Justice Department is re-opening the case of the murder of Emmett Till.

Apparently there's a new documentary that suggests many more people were present for his murder, some of them alive. You don't think they would be doing this just because it's an election year, do you? Nah...not them.

Did everyone else have a civil rights epiphany? Or was I just a late bloomer (which would be like me)? If you did, I'd like to know the story.

Democrats?
Kenny B asks where are the Democrats? That's a good question, though Biden and a few others have been very vocal in calling for Rumsfeld to resign, but I would prefer they take the lead in the conversation, instead of just trying to let the weight of the bad news and press scrutiny take its toll on Republicans.

And I promised before that I wouldn't have anything bad to say out loud about Kerry, but it's frustrating that his many positions nuanced position about Iraq has rendered him pretty ineffective in taking on Bush there, and now, to be honest, I feel like his own acknowledged past in Vietnam (atrocities was his word to describe his own activities in 1971) has left him unable to have much of a voice at all in this scandal.

Does Kerry think Democrats are overplaying their hand with this story? From a purely political, winning new votes point-of-view, do you think they are?

Who is Lane McCotter, and why should we care?
Josh Marshall has the answer. You should read it. It's all starting to come together.

Two Paths
This prison abuse story has a couple of paths left to take, both of which I expect to come because of what I'm reading, and each points to a different, perhaps even conflicting, explanation of the cruelty to Iraqis. Both, by the way, offer direct conflicts to the Limbaugh "prank, blowing off steam" theory.

The first is along the lines of what I've tried to suggest, along with many of you, in the last several posts: that there is, or must be a supervisory role to all this, empowering this behavior as a psychological tactic, sanctioned if not encouraged. I've even gone so far as to suggest this is a mitigating factor in assigning blame to the guards, that they're being asked to do it. The Guardian has a new story that lends credence to this path. If you are like me and have thought these tactics couldn't have just been thought up by our young guards, support is found here:

"The sexual humiliation of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison was not an invention of maverick guards, but part of a system of ill-treatment and degradation used by special forces soldiers that is now being disseminated among ordinary troops and contractors who do not know what they are doing, according to British military sources." (via Talking Points Memo)

So, down this path, far from being a prank, or blowing off steam, sexual humiliation was not mere mindless sadism, but an incredibly dangerous, known tactic. Remember, these soldiers have already gone along with the order to kill Iraqis on the battlefield. Now, they're being told sexual humiliation is a tactic with military purpose. How will they know where to stop?

The other path that this story seems sure to take is worse. Rumsfeld confirmed today that there are more pictures, and videos, showing worse things than we've seen publicly to date. MSNBC has some lurid, and heartbreaking, details:

"Rumsfeld did not describe the photos, but U.S. military officials told NBC News that the unreleased images showed U.S. soldiers severely beating an Iraqi prisoner nearly to death, having sex with a female Iraqi female prisoner and 'acting inappropriately with a dead body.' The officials said there was also a videotape, apparently shot by U.S. personnel, showing Iraqi guards raping young boys."

There are already some allegations of sodomy with foreign objects. That, with, especially, rape of a female and of children takes this scandal, in my mind, far beyond any authority/following orders argument can mitigate. No soldier can claim not to know those things are not to be done. All arguments of human frailty, obedience, lack-of-training, stresses of war aside, it is not too much to demand our troops refuse to rape a child (for God's sake), no matter what or who is compelling them. These more serious things (not that the others aren't serious) could not possibly be reasonably be confused with sanctioned miliary tactic.

I know, I know, I'm the one that's been arguing for a less judgmental assessment, to not underestimate all of our capacities to be cruel in the right circumstance. But I may have found my limit in this new material. The question I will have is what relationship do the 2 paths of abuse have, the "tactical," i.e., "I needed to, didn't want to," and the clearly criminal? It can't be coincidence that both took place at the same prison. It's a total failure of organizational leadership: planning, training, oversight, guidance. Only a gutless President, blind to the reality of failure, wouldn't dump his entire military/security advisory staff and leadership.

Stay away from Rush...he's Craaaazy
If you haven't heard, Limbaugh explains away the humiliation of Iraqi prisoners as a prank, or a way to "let off steam." Josh Marshall has this right:

"how about Rush Limbaugh's idea of a fun night out and blowing off steam?

You know when you're worked to the bone and you really need to unwind there's just nothing like grabbing a half dozen Arab dudes, stripping them naked, tying their bodies together against their will and pressing one guy's penis up against another guy's butt to make it like they're having anal sex. Right?

Party time for Rush, it would seem, is a mix of Studio 54 and Jack the Ripper.

As fun as A Clockwork Orange."

I'm going to try and change the subject after this (we'll consider this a 3-post series, so scroll down and read the last 2 if you want to know what I'm thinking through), honest. As for the Milgram experiments, Stevie T points out that many of the respondents in that experiement expressed hesitation and second thoughts and genuine anguish (before they went ahead and, so far as they knew, rendered another person unconscious or worse with an electric shock, just because a guy in a white coat told him it was ok).

With that in mind, read the notes of Chip Frederick, a man now involved in this controversy at the Abu Ghreib prison. We'll take his words with something of a grain of salt, as they could have been constructed after the fact only to save his own hide. My interest is in the sense that, far from just being a bizarre exercise in cruelty for the sake of it, every indication is given that nearly all the tactics used were sanctioned, indeed ordered, by Military Intelligence, the folks running the show at this prison. If you've seen the most recent pictures, of Iraqis tied up in the middle of the floor, while no less than 8 or 9 soldiers are out and about, it comports with this version of events--certainly no one looks surprised or trying to hide what's happening.

If we take these letters at face value, Chip indeed did express concern about the tactics being used, and was told "don't worry about it" and "that's how MI wants it done." Excuse? no. But if this investigation is going to be throrough it sounds more and more like it should be about the approved, understood, accepted means of gathering intelligence through interrogation in our own military, not just a renegade band of cruel, cold-hearted underlings.

et tu, female?
Perhaps adding to the somewhat controversial conversation (woohoo - my first! please jump in!) started below, a very insteresting read is Debra Dickerson's guest post at Washington Monthly a few days back, addressing the issue of the female seen prominently in the first pictures released. Notice that it took years (years!) for Debra to have her military persona finally taken over by her true values.

After Vietnam, we shouldn't need more evidence that war ruins the psyche of its combatants. It is not just an unfortunate opportunity for bad people to show their true natures. It is a place where people do the kinds of things they never would have done otherwise. There but for the grace of God...

War - Depravity = ??
You don't need me to tell you that the story of Iraqi abuse and humiliation by US soldiers is getting worse. I truly believed the first known incidents, as originally reported, were extremely isolated. I was wrong about that. Not only is this failure apparently deeper and wider than we've seen to date--Sy Hersh is warning that there is much much more--it was a scandal known about by military leaders for months. Even when the story was on the verge of breaking, and after all the lessons we've supposedly learned over the last 40 years, the military instinct would still seem to try and keep the truth from coming out, even keeping it from the Defense Secretary and the President.

It's too bad that "Nightline" does not post transcripts online. I caught the end of the show tonight, and they were discussing this prison incident in light of the Milgram Experiement, which Mark has told me about before. In that experiment, Dr. Milgram demonstrated the human capacity to cause pain, at very high levels, and at obvious odds with our own values, when under the cover of obedience to authority. Whether we like it or not, according to Milgram's report, "The Perils of Obedience," the response is a normal one:

"The ordinary person who shocked the victim did so out of a sense of obligation -- an impression of his duties as a subject -- and not from any peculiarly aggressive tendencies.

This is, perhaps, the most fundamental lesson of our study: ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

The role that authority and orders played in the display of depravity at Abu Ghreib prison is unclear. And I'm not trying to excuse anyone's behavior--far from it. But there is a related lesson we (humans) should have learned by now: the structure and the stresses of war bring horrible consequences. It does awful things to the defeated. It does awful things to the victorious. And is no friend of those in between.

Now, we are trying to understand what controls need to be put in place, what punishment to hand out, to allow us to wage this war in Iraq with more dignity, and less shame. But I remain unconvinced that war can be played at all on the field of dignity, the only terrain deserving of the truest human spirit. They must be prosecuted, and their violations of decency not tolerated, but the real problem here is not that we have a stream of bad acts perpetrated by bad people. The real problem is war, plain and simple. We are just not made to withstand its toll and uphold our greater nature. We can learn to do it better, and no doubt we have. But that accomplishment will not shine on us like the step of learning how to avoid war in the first place. I wish we could spend as much time on the latter as we do on the former.

{MORE: For info on a different experiment which may make an even better analogy, read about the Stanford Prison Experiment.}

My Dream End to Friends
The Final Episode: The Friends don't get the memo about the impending demolition of their apartment building, and are the only ones trapped inside when it is reduced to rubble. Quick, but tortured, deaths for them all.

I hate Friends.

How do you hope it ends?

The Wall Street Journal: Ethics Shmethics
You know those pull-out quotes that print publications use to highlight an article? Bigger type announcing the more compelling statements to be found within? It's designed to convince you to stop your browsing and want to actually dig in and find out who said that juicy thing and why. So you'd think the quote...since it's called a quote...and has, you know, quotation marks around it, actually appears somewhere in the piece, right?

Not necessarily. Even when it's a quote like "I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam. He doesn't deserve to be commander-in-chief."

Also, you'd think that a sentence like "I was on Mr. Kerry's boat in Vietnam," implies that the person saying it was there, on the boat, you know, at the same time as Mr. Kerry. Hence allowing the conclusion that follows.

Not necessarily.

Kevin Drum has the story and the picture at Washington Monthly.

Can we please please get a clip of a Republican saying "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'was' was"?

[MORE: Read about the history of the guy who wrote the crazy opinion (the one without the quote he was quoted as saying) here.]

Out-do the President and Defense Secretary
The Taguba Report, detailing not just a few instances, but a culture of prison abuses at Abu Ghraib. It reached conclusions and made recommendations and has been finalized since--no kidding--February. The military kept it quiet, from the public, and from Congress. If 60 Minutes and The New Yorker hadn't broken this story, it's doubtful that they would be dealing with it in any serious way, as they are forced to now. It's certainly no coincidence that talk about court-martials and holding people accountable started coming out after the story went public.

But still...the President hasn't read the report, nor has the Defense Secretary, or the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Continuing to conduct the war not by any recognizable leadership, but by being jerked around everytime their own lack of desire to know what's really going on bites them in the butt. It's happening with more and more regularity. From a Sacramento Bee opinion:

"Stunningly, although Taguba's report was finished in February, neither Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld nor Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had even read it as of May 1! Last Sunday, Rumsfeld ducked in the weeds, dispatching the general to work the Sunday TV-talk circuit.

'It's just working its way up - up the chain,' Myers explained lamely, when pressed by 'Face the Nation' host Bob Schieffer on CBS. Later, he told an equally persistent George Stephanopoulos on ABC's 'This Week': 'I'm not going to comment on it until I have a chance to read it and see what the context is. ... This sort of reporting can often be very, very wrong.'

Understand this: Taguba's report cited systemic illegal abuse of Iraqi detainees and quotes that the incidents were done at the direction of military intelligence officials. But Myers, who hadn't read the report, insisted: 'I would say that categorically there is no evidence of systematic abuse in this system at all.'

Rummy surfaced Tuesday to tell reporters that the Defense Department had been investigating this for months and had even told reporters of the probe on Jan. 16. But no, he hasn't read the report yet either.

Back at the White House, nothing is known about anything. Had National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice briefed President Bush about Taguba's shocking evidence and conclusions in February? March? April? Had he read the report? He surely could have gotten a copy quicker and easier than [New Yorker reporter] Sy Hersh did - just by commanding, one more time: 'Bring it on!'

Tone is set at the top. Bush failed to demand urgency inside and inoculate America's image by moving quickly and publicly on the outside. He needed to take strong public action against the culprits before the photos poured through the Great News Funnels around the world.

You can add distance to the measure by which you already out-class all of them by reading it yourself (finally available online, via TalkLeft) here. Warning: it's pretty long...I haven't read it all myself, but then again I'm not the Secretary of Defense and primary spokesperson for the war.

Reverse Advice Column
You know the scenario. You want coffee. You need coffee. You've already made coffee, but now it's cold. When has the coffee been sitting too long to re-heat? When must I make new coffee? When must desire be overcome by a little voice inside my head that warns: "you just can't drink that...it's been too long." What is your threshold?

Good News for Hockey Players

"Fake teeth, denture glue and sucking on bald gums may soon become a thing of the past, say a group of British scientists working on a procedure that makes teeth grow from stem cells implanted in the gum.

The scientists at King's College, London announced Monday they had made a breakthrough in mice, coaxing stem cells to grow into teeth within only a few weeks."

This really should make me happier than it does. It kind of gives me the creeps. Read more.

Privatization on Trial
Paul Krugman wonders what damage our economic policies have done in Iraq, including--and finally someone is talking about this--privatization of military functions out to civilian personnel accountable to nobody.

"Much has been written about the damage done by foreign policy ideologues who ignored the realities of Iraq, imagining that they could use the country to prove the truth of their military and political doctrines. Less has been said about how dreams of making Iraq a showpiece for free trade, supply-side tax policy and privatization — dreams that were equally oblivious to the country's realities — undermined the chances for a successful transition to democracy.
[SNIP]
Indeed, over the past year the Coalition Provisional Authority has slashed tariffs, flattened taxes and thrown Iraqi industry wide open to foreign investors — reinforcing the sense of many Iraqis that we came as occupiers, not liberators.
[SNIP]
What's truly shocking in Iraq, however, is the privatization of purely military functions.

For more than a decade, many noncritical jobs formerly done by soldiers have been handed to private contractors. When four Blackwater employees were killed and mutilated in Falluja, however, marking the start of a wider insurgency, it became clear that in Iraq the U.S. has extended privatization to core military functions. It's one thing to have civilians drive trucks and serve food; it's quite different to employ them as personal bodyguards to U.S. officials, as guards for U.S. government installations and — the latest revelation — as interrogators in Iraqi prisons."

I'm terribly jealous of his ability to tie things together. It is not only incompetent government heads and Presidential advisors to blame in the current mess. Conservative economic ideology, which as Krugman points out, would never have been employed by any Democratically elected leaders in Iraq, has had its way in the war-torn state, and is on display for the world to see. I hope this NYT column, which is worth a read in total, helps open the debate about privatizing military functions to wider press scrutiny.

In Case You Missed It: A Guide to the Weekend in Iraq
Situation: Fallujah is out of control. Coalition soldiers are under attack; attempted cease fires are cracking. We've killed more than 600 Iraqis and established no foothold of order in a town quickly becoming a haven for armed Iraqis bent on fighting the US. Those responsible for brutalizing the 4 Americans have still yet to be brought to justice.

Solution: Stop playing tiddly-winks and attack the city like we mean it.
Nope...too many civilians will die and it could lead to similar situations all over the country.

Solution #2: Lt. Gen. Conway on the ground has agreed, in a surprise, to pull the troops out of that town and hand over control to General Saleh and his growing, makeshift army of hundreds of men.
Oops...turns out Saleh's a thug who worked for Saddam. He won't work with us. It's a good deal for the US troops on the ground because it makes the people happy and gives the ceasefire some teeth, and perhaps a chance at legitimate US-Iraqi cooperation, but the Pentagon and State Dept. won't go for it, and never would even admit that control was handed over to the General.

Solution #3: Mohammed Latif will replace Saleh. A bit of an outsider, but an Iraqi and that keeps our troops out.

That's where we stand. Is negotiating our retreat a victory, or a failure? Only time will tell. Speculation abounds. But one thing is for sure, from my perspective: these are moves of desperation, not of planning on our part. If good comes from it, that doesn't mean we're not scrambling. We are.

New Website
If you're like me, the last thing you need is another daily must-read website. But still...I like it. David Brock makes me nervous, he formerly of the vast right-wing conspiracy, now of the vast left-wing conspiracy. So I'll try to be careful how much credence I give to his new, impressively well-funded and staffed website, Media Matters.

It is an attempt to catalogue and debunk mis-statements and lies and flip-flops in the media. So, basically it rehashes the details of the general foolishness in Fox News that already makes us not watch it (but with footnotes). Ditto for Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. To that extent I'm not sure how helpful it will be for a dialogue on issues. I already don't take anything those people say to be accurate. But, I'm assuming that, like with the amazingly good Al Franken book, the extent to which they'll bypass truth, honesty and logic to make their point could be instructive or at least entertaining. When there's an especially good one, I'll pass it along. I'll also add it to my blog roll on the left.