URL: http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2005_05_29_digbysblog_archive.html

     <p>"Taken as a whole, these blog posts tell a lively and informative
   story of one of the most powerful men in the country." -- The Road To
                                  Surfdom

<h>Hullabaloo

     <h>Shoes Tumbling To The Ground
     <p>If any Democratic Senators are looking for a way to shine light on
     the Downing St Memo(and I'm not holding my breath) this may be the
     way to do it. And the beauty of it is that they can use that
     loudmouthed cretin John Bolton to do it:

     <p>John R. Bolton flew to Europe in 2002 to confront the head of a
     global arms-control agency and demand he resign, then orchestrated
     the firing of the unwilling diplomat in a move a U.N. tribunal has
     since judged unlawful, according to officials involved.
     
	 <p>A former Bolton deputy says the U.S. undersecretary of state felt
     Jose Bustani "had to go," particularly because the Brazilian was
     trying to send chemical weapons inspectors to Baghdad. That might
     have helped defuse the crisis over alleged Iraqi weapons and
     undermined a U.S. rationale for war.
     [...]
     
	 <p>The Iraq connection to the OPCW affair comes as fresh evidence
     surfaces that the Bush administration was intent from early on to
     pursue military and not diplomatic action against Saddam Hussein's
     regime.
     
	 <p>An official British document, disclosed last month, said Prime
     Minister Tony Blair agreed in April 2002 to join in an eventual
     U.S. attack on Iraq. Two weeks later, Bustani was ousted, with
     British help.
     [...]
     
	 <p>After U.N. arms inspectors had withdrawn from Iraq in 1998 in a
     dispute with the Baghdad government, Bustani stepped up his
     initiative, seeking to bring Iraq - and other Arab states - into
     the chemical weapons treaty.
     
	 <p>Bustani's inspectors would have found nothing, because Iraq's
     chemical weapons were destroyed in the early 1990s. That would have
     undercut the U.S. rationale for war because the Bush administration
     by early 2002 was claiming, without hard evidence, that Baghdad
     still had such an arms program.
     
	 <p>In a March 2002 "white paper," Bolton's office said Bustani was
     seeking an "inappropriate role" in Iraq, and the matter should be
     left to the U.N. Security Council - where Washington has a veto.
     Bolton said in a 2003 AP interview that Iraq was "completely
     irrelevant" to Bustani's responsibilities. Earle and Bohlen
     disagree. Enlisting new treaty members was part of the OPCW chief's
     job, they said, although they thought he should have consulted with
     Washington.
     
	 <p>Former Bustani aide Bob Rigg, a New Zealander, sees a clear U.S.
     motivation: "Why did they not want OPCW involved in Iraq? They felt
     they couldn't rely on OPCW to come up with the findings the U.S.
     wanted."
     
	 <p>Bustani and his aides believe friction with Washington over OPCW
     inspections of U.S. chemical-industry sites also contributed to the
     showdown, which went on for months.

     <p>The article discusses at some length what an asshole Bolton was,
     menacing and inapprorpiate, but then what else is new. What is
     interesting is that the article connects the dots between Downing
     St and this explicitly.
     
	 <p>This is an AP article. Unfortunately, it is also on the wires on
     Saturday where it is most likely to be overlooked. Unless we refuse
     to let it.
     
	 <p>The media needs a hook to start talking about Downing St. I think
     Bolton's toast, but if the nomination goes forward I would
     certainly hope that the Democrats would use this as an opening to
     start talking about it. If Bolton ends up withdrawing because of
     this (and he might) then the media also has an excuse to talk about
     it.
     
	 <p>I wonder if Monsignor Russert will see fit to discuss this between
     Hail Mary's on Press the Meat tomorrow morning?

     <h>What's Good For The Goose Is Only Good For The Goose
     <p>It is interesting that the ACLU got a ruling requiring that all the
     Abu Ghraib pictures be released to the public. What is really
     interesting is that the government argued that releasing them would
     be contrary to the Geneva Conventions. (Via Talk Left)

     <p>"It is indeed ironic that the government invoked the Geneva
     Conventions as a basis for withholding these photographs," said
     Amrit Singh, a staff attorney at the ACLU. "Had the government
     genuinely adhered to its obligations under these Conventions, it
     could have prevented the widespread abuse of detainees held in its
     custody in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay."

     <p>It's nearly impossible to be as obtuse as is the Bush
     administration without having either some sort of cognitive problem
     or psychological impairment. I suspect it's the latter.
     This recent phony outrage about Amnesty International is another
     example of this pathology. They had no problem using Amnesty to
     buttress their case against Saddam, but balk at being called to
     task for our own very obvious and well known human rights abuses in
     Guantanamo. Of course, there is little mention of this (except by
     Jon Stewart) so it doesn't matter. Patriotic correctness requires
     that any criticism of the United States be immediately struck down
     as treasonous, if not blasphemous.
     
	 <p>If anybody still wants to know why they hate us, this would be a
     good place to start.
     

     <h>Who Cares What We Think?
     <p>Matt Yglesias, blogging from his fancy new digs at the TPM Cafe,
     says today:

     <p>At today's Take Back America conference I saw some interesting
     polling data from Diane Feldman on a subject I'd pondered now and
     again. Unfortunately, the written summary of the presentation
     doesn't contain the exact numbers and I didn't write them down
     because I assumed this question would be included in the summary.
     The point, however, was that when you ask if America is "the
     greatest country in the world" most voters say that it is. When you
     ask if Democrats believe that America is the greatest country, most
     voters say that they do not.
     
	 <p>I think it's clear that this perception creates some electoral
     problems. Indeed, it's a particularly serious kind of electoral
     problem because my guess is that the perception is probably
     correct.

     <p>It seems to me that if you are a member of the "reality based"
     community, as so many of us liberals claim to be, that you can't
     answer such a question without qualifiers. This means that we are
     unable to respond in appropriate knee jerk fashion and are
     therefore assumed to be unpatriotic. The question is simple minded
     and it demands a simple minded answer and that's a problem for us.
     Perhaps we should just lie, like everyone already does about going
     to church or whether they are faithful or all the other things
     Americans are forced to lie about in our right wing PC times.
     
	 <p>Patriotism is defined in the dictionary quite simply as "love of
     one's country and a willingness to sacrifice for it." That is not
     the same thing as believing that your country is the greatest
     country in the world. I love many things in life that aren't "the
     greatest" and I don't see the conflict. One doesn't have to abandon
     all intellectual integrity to love something, imperfect and
     not-so-great as it may be. America is certainly the most powerful
     country in the world. One would think that people could be
     satisfied enough with that, but apparently not.
     
	 <p>What does it mean to be the "greatest country in the world, or as
     I've heard it put, "the greatest country the world has ever known"
     anyway? Is it measured by how fair and just our system of
     government is or standard of living or military prowess, or what?
     Is it, as George W. Bush pushes incessantly, because its people are
     "good?" Or is it that by all measures of all things it is simply
     the best?
     
	 <p>I raise this because I suspect that what people really want from
     liberals is not patriotism, but chauvinism, one important facet of
     which is characterized in this context by the belief that your
     national culture and interests are superior to any other. (Our
     vaunted "exceptionalism" is not made up of a whole lot more than
     that simple definition.) And, yes, some liberals do not sign on to
     that, for good reason. Because it's bullshit. And America, the home
     of mutts from all over the world, the give-me-your-tired-your-poor
     immigrant nation, should be more aware of the shallowness and
     idiocy of this than any other country in the world. It's not as if
     we are Germans trying to preserve the fairy tale of a thousand year
     Reich. It's one of the good things about not being European, with
     all that baggage --- or would be if we thought about it for half a
     minute.
     
	 <p>Simple observation of the world shows that all nations are made up
     of human beings, which automatically taints the project. America
     and Iraq and China and everywhere else are comprised of this very
     flawed species. If you live long enough you see that, as much as
     our fearless leader likes to claim otherwise, Americans are not
     "better" and therefore our country is not "better." Only individual
     people can be judged better or worse and it is without regard to
     nationality, culture or religious belief.
     
	 <p>Our democratic experiment has been a worldwide inspiration and our
     Bill of Rights is one of the most important contributions any
     nation has made to mankind. This country has welcomed immigrants
     (in fits and starts) from all over the world and created a wealthy,
     successful nation because of it. I would easily sacrifice for the
     country, it's my home. I love it the way anyone loves their home,
     with a deep and emotional connection that transcends intellectual
     thought. But I don't need to suspend my judgement or my faculties
     and further say that this country is the greatest country on earth.
     There is no such thing as the greatest country on earth.
     
	 <p>Matt feels that this presents an electoral problem. I would agree
     if people like me were expressing these views in a political
     campaign. (Just call me Ward Churchill, I guess.) However, the
     perception that Matt talks about isn't fueled by some quasi
     intellectual argument about chauvinism. It's fueled by Rush
     Limbaugh and his band of flaming gasbags who have spent the last
     fifteen years saying that liberals hate America day after day.
     
	 <p>John Kerry volunteered for Vietnam, fought bravely, and came home
     and devoted himself to ending what he saw as an unjust war.
     Meanwhile his rival George Bush spent the war drinking beer and
     fucking off. Yet Kerry was made out to be a coward and Bush a hero.
     I suspect that my candidate, Wes Clark, would have been similarly
     reduced to sissy status despite the fact he was a four star
     general. Proof of love and devotion to country is not particularly
     relevant --- just as what liberals really think about America is
     not particularly relevant.
     
	 <p>Our political problems stem from some very deep and ongoing
     cultural anxieties that we need to think about and confront. What
     we can't do anything about is the idea that liberals tend to be
     more --- dare I say it --- nuanced than conservatives. It is a
     characteristic not a policy. We're stuck with that and we're just
     going to have to find a way to make it work for us.
    

     <h>Common Sense
     
	 <p>Dear FEC,
    	
		<p>I write to you today to request your kind advisory as to whether
     this pamphlet defines me as an ACTIVIST or a JOURNALIST. Whilst I
     am loathe to corrupt our pristine electoral system with my calls to
     political action, neither would I wish to cause our sanctioned
     press any undue hardship due to its perceived affiliation with
     rabble like myself. I do understand that "citizen journalists" not
     being PROPERLY CREDENTIALED creates terrible confusion amongst the
     leaders of government and society. I humbly request, therefore,
     that you peruse my pamphlet with an eye toward giving me the
     designation I shall need going forward if I wish to publish and
     disseminate my words without government interference. I anxiously
     await your verdict.
     
	 <p>Sincerely,
     <p>Thomas Paine
   
     <h>For The Record
     
	 <p>Yesterday I mentioned the fact that that FoxNews had the incredible
     chutzpah to discuss openly why nobody is reporting the Downing
     Street Memo --- without actually reporting on the Downing St memo.
     It turns out that there is a movement afoot to gain some attention
     for this thing and I think it's worth doing, if only for history's
     sake if nothing else. There should be a record of some Americans'
     interest in such a damning document that proves the president of
     the United States knowingly took the country to war on false
     pretenses. It may come in handy someday.
     
	 <p>Shakespeare's Sister informs me that theBig Brass Alliance is a
     collection of bloggers who are supporting a group called After
     Downing Street that is dedicated to gaining exposure for this
     issue. One positive thing that anyone can do is sign (along with 88
     members of congress) this letter that John Conyers has written to
     the president requesting some answers to the obvious questions this
     document raises.
     
	 <p>This isn't some pie-in-the-sky lefty kumbaya petition (not that
     there's anything wrong with that.) This memo is smoking gun proof
     that Bush lied us into war. Many of us knew this from the get. But,
     I think it's probably true that most others already know this on
     some level as well --- a fair number are glad he did, a few more
     don't care, and the rest just don't want to confront their own
     bloodlust or willfull blindness. It's hard to admit you were wrong
     about something so deadly.
     
	 <p>The rest of us need to keep a clear head and insist that this not
     be swept under the rug to the extent that we can. We have to keep
     the idea that there will be some sort of rational accountability
     for such acts alive in this culture or we are goners.
     
     <h>Losing Their Religion
     <p>Regarding right wing Christians putting their embryos up for
     adoption and insisting they not be adopted by gays or
     non-Christians (preferably not a working woman either) AMERICAblog
     wonders how this Bush promoted religious discrimination can get
     past the editors of the NY Times unaddressed.
     
	 <p>I'll tell you how:

     <p>Though we have our lapses, (pdf) individual news stories on
     emotional topics like abortion, gun control, the death penalty and
     gay marriage are reported and edited with great care, to avoid any
     impression of bias. Nonetheless, when numerous articles use the
     same assumption as a point of departure, that monotone can leave
     the false impression that the paper has chosen sides. This is
     especially so when we add in our feature sections, whose mission it
     is to write about novelty in life. As a result, despite the strict
     divide between editorial pages and news pages, The Times can come
     across as an advocate.
     
	 <p>The public editor found that the overall tone of our coverage of
     gay marriage, as one example, approaches cheerleading. By
     consistently framing the issue as a civil rights matter -- gays
     fighting for the right to be treated like everyone else -- we
     failed to convey how disturbing the issue is in many corners of
     American social, cultural and religious life.
     [...]
     
	 <p>Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that
     uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As
     one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist inevitably
     incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are
     extreme. We often apply religious fundamentalists, another loaded
     term, to political activists who would describe themselves as
     Christian conservatives. ...

     <p>The editors didn't fail. They succeeded. They "re-framed" the issue
     of religious discrimination and gay rights. They are simply being
     "sensitive" and "conveying how disturbing the issue us in many
     corners of American social, cultural and religious life" when they
     uncritically report on a White House endorsed publicly funded group
     that enables Christian bigots to discriminate even though it's
     clearly against the law.
     
	 <p>I think it's time we called out the PC police on the wingnuts.
     Nobody likes political correctness, not even liberals, really. And
     our day is long past. This is the new province of the right and
     they have finally hammered the press into thinking that
     discrimination and bigotry are really just normal expressions of
     religious belief and must be treated with kid gloves. I call
     bullshit every time one of these timorous cowards clutch their tiny
     lace hankies and blubber something about how they are being
     sensitive to the beliefs of bigoted assholes.
     
	 <p>Just in case James Dobson and his new friends, the intellectuals at
     the NY Times, have forgotten their eighth grade American history
     class, Confederates used the Bible to justify slavery, too. Bin
     Laden uses the Koran to justify terrorism. Just because they wrap
     themselves in the Holy Books doesn't mean these theo-fascists they
     aren't breaking the laws of both God and Man.
     
	 <p>For a more in depth analysis of the NY Times "credibility" report,
     see Reading A1
   

     <h>Buy This Book
     <p>The Stock Ticker and the Superjumbo : How the Democrats Can Once
     Again Become America's Dominant Political Party
     
	 <p>I have ordered it and await it eagerly. Rick Perlstein is one of
     the clearest observers of American politics around and one of the
     very few historians who really understands how the right wing
     works.
     
	 <p>It's only 8 bucks and I guarantee that it will be worth reading
     even if you don't agree with his conclusions:

     <p>A majority of Americans tell pollsters they want more government
     intervention to reduce the gap between high- and lower-income
     citizens, and less than one-third consider high taxes to be a
     problem. Yet conservative Republicanism currently controls the
     political discourse. Why?
     
	 <p>Rick Perlstein probes this central paradox of today's political
     scene in his penetrating pamphlet. Perlstein explains how the
     Democrats' obsessive short-term focus on winning "swing voters,"
     instead of cultivating loyal party-liners, has relegated Democrats
     to political stagnation. Perlstein offers a vigorous critique and
     far-reaching vision that is a thirty-year plan for Democratic
     victory.

     <p>If you are very good, I may even be able to persuade the author to
     do a little blogospheric interview if he's so inclined. It's long
     past time that liberals supported their writers and thinkers the
     way the wingnuts support theirs.
     
	 <p>Update:
     
	 <p>Speaking of books, are any of you libertarians out there a little
     bit discomfited by the fact that "On Liberty" by JS Mill got an
     honorable mention in the 10 worst books list by HumanEvents
     magazine? I mean, "Mein Kampf" and "Das Kapital" aren't big
     surprises. I'm not shocked by "The Feminine Mystique" or even the
     inclusion of John Maynard Keynes (although you have to love this
     commentary: "FDR adopted the idea as U.S. policy, and the U.S.
     government now has a $2.6-trillion annual budget and an $8-trillion
     dollar debt." Haha.)
     
	 <p>But "On Liberty"? What, he wasn't sufficiently agitated about stem
     cell research? The capital gains tax?
     
	 <p>Jesus, I now have not one single intellectual connection to the
     right. Not one. They are aliens from another planet.
  
     <h>The Party Of Krugman
     
	 <p>Somebody asked me what my favorite columnist was the other day and
     I said that I thought most liberal bloggers like Krugman because he
     writes the way we write --- he doesn't suffer fools and he writes
     with all the righteous indignation he feels at what he sees. And, I
     suspect that this is why establishment journos like Daniel Okrent
     don't like him. He just refuses to play the game by establishment
     rules.
     
	 <p>This post by Brad DeLong exposes the entire silly social aspect of
     this and gives us a window into why liberals are being marginalized
     in the mainstream media. We are supposed to be nice. The other side
     is expected to be tough and uncompromising. Krugman is a fighter
     and he never gives ground when he thinks he's right. That's
     unbecoming in a liberal because it means that you have to engage in
     the facts and have a real argument instead of just hurling insults
     or bumper stickers as you can when dealing with right wing critics.
     
	 <p>Daniel Okrent finds his behavior unseemly and annoying:

     <p>For a man who makes his living offering strong opinions, Paul
     Krugman seems peculiarly reluctant to grant the same privilege to
     others. And for a man who leads with his chin twice a week, he acts
     awfully surprised when someone takes a pop at it
     [...]
     
	 <p>On Prof. Krugman's defense of his unfamiliarity with it, he's
     effectively saying, "If I didn't know about it, it must not be
     important." This is a polemicist's dodge; no self-respecting
     journalist would ever make such an argument.
     [...]
     
	 <p>Believe me -- I could go on, as could a number of readers more
     sophisticated about economic matters than I am. (Among these are
     several who, like me, generally align themselves politically with
     Prof. Krugman, but feel he does himself and his cause no good when
     he heeds the roaring approval of his acolytes and dismisses his
     critics as ideologically motivated.) But I don't want to engage in
     an extended debate any more than Prof. Krugman says he does. If he
     replies to this statement, as I imagine he will, I'll let him have
     what he always insists on keeping for himself: the last word.
     I hate to do this to a decent man like my successor, Barney Calame,
     but I'm hereby turning the Krugman beat over to him.

     <p>Oh Boo hoo hoo. God forbid a liberal should accuse one's critics of
     being ideologically motivated. You would think that the ombudsman
     of the NY Times would have a slightly bigger bone to pick with the
     right wing which has been calling them ideologically motivated for
     40 fucking years. But then, that would require they acknowledge
     reality and that is what cannot happen.
     
	 <p>Paul Krugman is an in-your-face, unapologetic member of the reality
     based community. He calls it as he sees it and he doesn't mince
     words in doing so. As he amply demonstrated in his response to
     Okrent's shallow criticisms (which, even if true, would hardly
     back-up his calumnous accusations in his last piece) Krugman does
     not particularly enjoy being told he is wrong on the facts when he
     isn't. World class economists may be used to being called to task
     for their conclusions or their predictions, but saying that he is
     cooking the numbers for partisan reasons are fighting words. His
     reputation rests on his intellectual integrity. Of course he is
     going to fight when challenged by lame conventional wisdom and
     spoonfed propaganda. If only more liberal pundits had his guts we
     might not be where we are today.
     
	 <p>Paul Krugman is tough and fearless and we need more like him --
     people who are not part of the cliquish Sally Quinn social scene
     (it about made me puke to read that unctuous little screed again)
     and who do not depend upon the approbation of aging social mavens
     for their self esteem.
     
	 <p>Tell me that the party of Krugman is a bunch of soft cowards who
     can't fight terrorism or run a disciplined economic agenda. Tell me
     the party of Krugman doesn't know what it believes in. The party of
     Krugman believes in reality, that the emperor has no clothes, that
     up is up and down is down. And it isn't afraid to tell snivelling
     little babies like Daniel Okrent to stick it where the sun don't
     shine. The party of Krugman doesn't lay down and take it. It
     fights.
     
	 <p>Update! Somerby takes Okrent, skewers him quickly and then slowly
     roasts him over a very high flame. It is awesome. Okrent, the
     Manhattan fop.
    
     <h>No Mirrors Available
     
	 <p>This is too much. Shakespeare's Sister spots a FoxNews headline
     that says: Downing Street Memo Mostly Ignored in US.
     
	 <p>Can you believe it? And then Fox goes on to wonder why that might
     be. They simply can't figure it out. They interview people and
     ponder the question and go to great lengths to explain why it isn't
     being reported. I don't see that they interview Roger Ailes or John
     Moody, however. Perhaps they were too busy.
     
	 <p>They even point out that the left has been trying in vain to get
     attention for the issue:

     <p>Several popular left-leaning blogs have taken up the cause to keep
     the story alive, encouraging readers to contact media outlets. A
     Web site, DowningStreetMemo.com, tells readers to contact the White
     House directly with complaints.
     
	 <p>"This is a test of the left-wing blogosphere," said Jim Pinkerton,
     syndicated columnist and regular contributor to FOX News Watch, who
     pointed out that The Sunday Times article came out just before the
     British election and apparently had little effect on voters'
     decisions.
     
	 <p>"In many ways that memo might prove all of the arguments the
     critics of the war have made," he added. "But the bulk of Americans
     don't agree, or don't seem that alarmed, so it is a power test to
     see if they can drive it back on the agenda."

     <p>I guess the fact that most people don't know is irelevant.
     Certainly, it can't be because FoxNews itself isn't reporting it.
     Except, of course, to report that nobody cares.
     
	 <p>Even though Pinkerton is trying to turn this into a test of the
     liberal blogosphere for gawd knows what reason, it is an important
     story that we should continue to press. Sometimes these things take
     time.
     
	 <p>Check out DowningStreetMemo.com. They'll tell you where to send
     your angry lefty e-mail.
  
     <h>Your Lovin' Don't Pay My Bills
     
	 <p>John Aravosis wonders if liberals have "issues" with money --- he
     sees a hostility toward money on the left and wonders where it
     comes from. His readers offer some very interesting opinions on the
     matter, so be sure to read the comment thread if you find this
     topic intriguing.
     
	 <p>I have a slightly different perception on the matter than most, it
     seems. I admit to having issues with it, probably because I always
     valued time over money. (Of course, as you get older you begin to
     realize that you run out of that too.) However, I don't harbor
     resentment toward others. I made my choices and I don't live a life
     full of regret about much of anything. I have no moral qualms about
     making money (in a decent way) and I don't think that it's my
     business to judge others on what they choose to spend it on. I
     appreciate what it can do to make life comfortable for the
     individual and how it motivates people to work. I certainly accept
     that there is something intrinsic to human nature in the
     acquisition of wealth and the desire to succeed. But I do have
     issues, nonetheless.
     
	 <p>John's readers more than adequately explain what I think is the
     common liberal argument against money and it's the general belief
     in egalitarianism --- that it is not really moral to have too much
     when others have so little. These are ideas that, ironically
     enough, stem from Christian teaching. So much for the godless
     heathens of the left.
     
	 <p>I don't approach this from a moral standpoint, although I'm
     sympathetic to the notion just from a human empathetic standpoint.
     If you've ever spent much time in the third world, you realize
     right quick that human life is valued very differently on our
     planet and it won't make you feel particularly terrific about your
     own (except, of course, for the South Park Republicans who
     apparently can't think beyond their good luck --- what they would
     call their natural superiority --- at being American.)
     
	 <p>It has been my experience that money confers power over others and
     that is where I personally get uncomfortable. This is not directly
     related to marxist theory, although I would suspect that there
     isn't a lefty (or a righty for that matter) who hasn't been
     influenced to some degree by it, so it's certainly relevant to my
     thinking on the issue. (He diagnosed the illness, it was his
     prescription that wasn't so hot.) Mostly,though, I think it's a
     matter of human psychology. People who work for wages, particularly
     those lower on the scale, are simply not in control of their lives
     in the same way as are those who work for themselves or those who
     are independently wealthy. From being treated like a lackey by the
     boss to having to answer to your mother-in-law because she loaned
     you money for the down payment, there is a slight, and sometimes
     not so slight, corruption of your freedom every time you are
     dependent upon another individual's goodwill. And it is a rare
     person who will not immediately exercise this power over others if
     they feel threatened or angry and a rare person who will not feel
     the metaphorical lash at having to answer for it.
     
	 <p>As much as I am concerned as they are with individual freedom, this
     is why I find it so hard to relate to libertarians; I think that
     the common experience of working for wages and being beholden to
     another individual is more of a tangible infringement upon personal
     liberty than the extraction of taxes for the greater good. The
     infringement on personal freedom that is most immediate and
     constant in most people's lives is having to brownnose another
     human being or play fast and loose with the rules because their
     financial survival depends upon it. It's why I support unions and
     workplace rules and consumer rights. In the everyday lives of most
     people, the biggest limits on their freedom and challenges to their
     integrity come not from government regulators but greedy and
     powerful employers.
     
	 <p>And yet, it is the way of the world and we each have to find a way
     to live with a modicum of decency and integrity within it. And I
     think it is a much more complicated and difficult row to hoe than
     we Americans think it is. It is not as easy to obtain financial
     freedom as some would have it nor is financial success a perfect
     illustration of an individual's merit. That's why I don't much like
     money, in a general conceptual way. It has corrupted friendships,
     family, jobs and relationships in ways that nothing else in my life
     ever has. It can and is used as a weapon as often as a tool. In a
     hyper capitalist society such as ours, it's perhaps the single most
     powerful method the individual has (or doesn't have) to create his
     or her own destiny. It's both a blessing and a curse.
     
	 <p>It's a good thing to think about how you really feel about it ---
     most Americans never question their assumptions. In many ways, it's
     probably easier that way. Bravo to John for bringing it up.
     
	 <p>And by the way, I hope this makes it clear that I do not hold with
     the idea that because a blogger accepted donations that he or she
     is required to answer to the donors. Indeed, I think the opposite.
     People give money because they appreciate the work. When they don't
     appreciate the work they don't give money. It's one of the cleanest
     exchanges of goods and services around, fully voluntary and without
     further obligation on either part.
     
	 <p>This reminds me of a relative who wanted to help out her
     grandfather in his later years. He was living with an aunt who also
     had little money. This relative agreed to send a hundred dollars a
     month. When she went to visit she found out that granddad was
     drinking a couple of beers every night and the aunt played bingo on
     Saturdays. The relative considered these expenses to be a waste.
     She figured her hundred a month entitled her to straighten up these
     people's bad habits and she insisted that because she had sent
     them, by this time, more than a couple thousand dollars that they
     already owed her quite a lot, even if she withdrew her monthly
     stipend. They gave up the beer and the bingo but the relative
     continued to find their spending habits objectionable and made sure
     that they knew it and did as they were told. Granddad was reduced
     to sneaking around and the aunt was isolated from all the friends
     she used to see at weekly bingo. They felt like children. Luckily
     they both died before long and ended the ritual humiliation the
     whole thing had evolved into. The money was not worth it.
     
	 <p>If Aravosis wanted to blow all his donations on lottery tickets
     they'd be his to blow. If that bothers you, don't donate again. But
     making a donation doesn't entitle anyone to think they own John or
     his blog. He owns himself, always.
    

     <h>Maybe He Won't Be Back
     
	 <p>Check out this fascinating pictorial deconstruction of
     Schwarzeneger's ad on BagNewsNotes today. (Or just click the ad at
     left.) For those of you who don't live in California, this ad is
     just pathetic, and it's chock full of product placement. I don't
     think I've ever seen this many brand names in a political
     commercial before.
     
	 <p>But, as BNN points out, it's also aesthetically just a terrible ad
     --- even by political ad standards which aren't very high. It's not
     that it has some sort of cinema verite authenticity in its badness.
     It's just ugly and ineffectual.
     
	 <p>This is the mega star of the 1980's we're talking about here. The
     man whose entire claim to fame is his celebrity. Yet his people
     produce an ad that could have been done by someone(with lots of
     high placed friends in the food and beverage business) running for
     the San Bernardino school board. And it comes on the heels of
     months of very effective ads done by the public employees unions
     featuring the the sunny smiles of elementary schoolteachers and
     nurses and the rugged all American features of heroic firefighters.
     (Jon Stewart said "those are some MILFS.")
     
	 <p>I think that people expect Schwarzenneger's ads to be professional
     show business quality. That is, after all, the only thing he's got
     going for him. Nobody voted for Arnold because of his great ideas
     or policy prescriptions. He didn't have any then and he doesn't
     have any now. They did expect him to at least play the part of the
     Governor well on TV. But then again, he never was the actor Ronald
     Reagan was in the movies, either. And that's saying something.
     

     <h>The Incredible Shrinking President
     
	 <p>Funny how we haven't seen any of the weekly news magazines do a
     cover story on the fact that Bush is the earliest lame duck in
     history. Considering that they were writing Bill Clinton's epitaph
     within three months of his first term, one might conclude that they
     are using a different standard. How unusual.
     But then again, it isn't his fault and it isn't his job. Unlike
     Clinton he doesn't have a congressional majority of his own party
     to lead. Oh wait...
     
	 <h>Bush Rejects Talk of Waning Influence:

     <p>President Bush dismissed yesterday suggestions that his influence
     is waning less than six months into his second term, blaming
     partisanship and timidity in Congress for the lack of action on his
     plans to bring change to the United Nations, restructure Social
     Security and enact a new energy policy this year.
     
	 <p>"I don't worry about anything here in Washington, D.C.," Bush said
     during a news conference in the White House's Rose Garden. "I feel
     comfortable in my role as the president, and my role . . . is to
     push for reform." With Democrats and Republicans alike questioning
     the clout of a president whose approval ratings have sunk to new
     lows, Bush said it is Congress that must prove it is "capable of
     getting anything done."

     <p>His job is to "push for reform?" I thought he was keeping the
     babies safe and fending off drone planes with his bare hands.
     What's going on here? The man with the codpiece can't get a
     Republican congress to enact his agenda? Man, those panting
     security moms must be disappointed. The difference between the 85%
     Collossus of 2002 and the petulant powerlessness of today is stark.
     And he clearly didn't like the way people were talking about his
     soul brother Vladimir:

     <p>Speaking a few hours after former Russian oil tycoon Mikhail
     Khodorkovsky was sentenced to nine years in prison after a trial
     that many democratic activists called politically motivated, Bush
     said he has expressed concerns about the legal proceedings to
     President Vladimir Putin and will watch the appeals process
     closely. "Here, you are innocent until proven guilty, and it
     appeared to us, at least people in my administration, that it
     looked like he had been judged guilty prior to having a fair
     trial," Bush said.

     <p>I guess he wanted to preserve his personal deniability for when he
     and Vlady next meet over beers and pork rinds at the ranch set. Or
     he just didn't see the problem. After all, this is the man who said
     several thousand times that Saddam had to be disarmed and then
     pulled out the weapons inspectors when they didn't find the proof.
     Seems to me that he has an affinity for the concept of judging
     guilty before having a fair trial.
     
	 <p>And, of course he and everyone in the press corpse are too thick to
     see the utter vacuity of his statement in light of what he said
     just a few minutes before about alleged human rights abuses
     Guantanamo:

     <p>"It seemed to me they based some of their decisions on the word of
     -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention,
     people who hate America, people that had been trained in some
     instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth,' Bush
     said."

     <p>Yes, he actually said "disassemble" --- and then had the nerve to
     be snotty about it and define it. There is no end to the man's
     arrogance and ignorance.
     
	 <p>Bush apparently has no idea that when he starts lecturing Moscow or
     Beijing about "fair trials" everyone now collapses in convulsive
     laughter. Guantanamo has changed forever the idea that Americans
     have a fair and impartial judicial system based upon the rule of
     law and the constitution. Bush and his cronies have shown that we
     are more than capable of suspending those things at will. If we
     ever had any moral authority, it has been officially flushed down
     the toilet.
     
	 <p>Not that it really matters to these people. They don't believe that
     it's important to have moral authority. They only believe that it's
     important to have big guns and a willingness to use them.
     Unfortunately, we don't seem to be all that good at the Empire
     building thing. Maybe keeping our moral authority backed by the
     threat of force rather than a clumsy and useless demonstration of
     our ineptitude might have been a better way to go.
     
	 <p>This is going to be a long 3 and a half years. But I'm beginning to
     think I may enjoy them more than Junior will.
    

     <h>New Ideas
     
	 <p>This is good. Some in the administration are apparently questioning
     whether waging a "Global War on Terror" is an effective way to deal
     with the threat of islamic fundamentalism. Wow. Next thing you know
     they'll be wondering whether taxes and expenditures ought to be in
     balance or something. Weird.

     
	 <p>The review marks the first ambitious effort since the immediate
     aftermath of the 2001 attacks to take stock of what the
     administration has called the "global war on terrorism" -- or GWOT
     -- but is now considering changing to recognize the evolution of
     its fight. "What we really want now is a strategic approach to
     defeat violent extremism," said a senior administration official
     who described the review on the condition of anonymity because it
     is not finished. "GWOT is catchy, but there may be a better way to
     describe it, and those are things that ought to be incumbent on us
     to look at."

     <p>Yeah. "GWOT" is a catchy phrase that's been sweeping the nation
     like wildfire.
     
	 <p>So they've decided that what we really need is a strategic approach
     to defeat violent extremism. Hmmm. I have an idea. How about we
     invade and occupy a non terrorist country in the middle of the
     region, create political chaos and foment a civil war? Surely that
     can only be seen as a gesture of goodwill on our part. But just in
     case we should probably say that the country has nukes strapped to
     drone planes that are ready to attack the eastern seaboard at any
     moment. (Nobody will remember any of that in a year anyway.)
     
	 <p>Well, maybe that's not such a hot idea after all.

     <p>Much of the discussion has focused on how to deal with the rise of
     a new generation of terrorists, schooled in Iraq over the past
     couple years. Top government officials are increasingly turning
     their attention to anticipate what one called "the bleed out" of
     hundreds or thousands of Iraq-trained jihadists back to their home
     countries throughout the Middle East and Western Europe. "It's a
     new piece of a new equation," a former senior Bush administration
     official said. "If you don't know who they are in Iraq, how are you
     going to locate them in Istanbul or London?"

     <p>Interesting. Who would have ever dreamed this could happen? Oh,
     that's right. Those of us who were against the invasion. In fact,
     it was the central practical argument that I and most others I know
     set forth at the time. It was always obvious that invading Iraq was
     going to foment terrorism, not quell it. Anybody with a sixth grade
     education could see that. Well, except for some Republicans who
     went to Andover, Yale and Harvard, that is.
     
	 <p>I really can't believe it. After they just ran a ruthless,
     mendacious, presidential campaign of character assasination against
     anyone who diverted even a half step from their party line, here
     they are, basically admitting that their entire GWOT is a fucking
     goddamned mistake.
     
	 <p>The good news though is that just as they were before 9/11, the
     administration is focused like a laser beam on combatting
     terrorism:

     <p>The review may have been slowed somewhat by the fact that many of
     the key counterterrorism jobs in the administration have been empty
     for months, including the top post at the State Department for
     combating terrorism, vacant since November, and the directorship of
     the new National Counterterrorism Center. "We're five months into
     the next term, and still a number of spots have yet to be filled,"
     Cressey said. "You end up losing valuable time."
     
	 <p>The counterterrorism center was created nearly a year ago by Bush
     to serve as the main clearinghouse for terrorism-related
     intelligence but is not yet fully operational, and has been run by
     an acting director and caught up in the broader wave of
     bureaucratic reorganization that resulted in the creation of the
     new directorate of national intelligence, whose fiefdom the center
     will join.
     
	 <p>As part of the reorganization, a new office of strategic and
     operational planning is slated to become the focal point for
     operations aimed at terrorists, but that, too, has yet to start
     working fully, the senior counterterrorism official said.
     
	 <p>Townsend just hired a deputy last week, Treasury official Juan
     Carlos Zarate, to take on the terrorism portfolio at the NSC;
     Townsend had been doing that as well as serving as the president's
     top homeland security aide for the past year. Several
     counterterrorism sources said the State job will soon be filled by
     CIA veteran Hank Crumpton and the counterterrorism center post is
     slated to go to Air Force Gen. Charles F. Wald, current deputy
     commander of U.S. forces in Europe.
     
	 <p>"They recognize there's been a vacuum of leadership," said a former
     top counterterrorism official, who spoke on the condition of
     anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. "There has
     been a dearth of senior leadership directing this day to day. No
     one knows who's running this on a day-to-day basis."

     <p>Well, that's good. We're creating terrorists by the thousands day
     after day but the administration can't get it together enough to
     hire the people it needs to fill the anti-terrorist positions. The
     president himself is awfully busy, as we know, tilting at his
     private windmill accounts and riding his trike in the woods. Cheney
     is undoubtedly putting all his efforts into figuring out how to
     justify the use of tactical nuclear weapons on California. Who has
     time to deal with this terrorism thing? It's so 2002.
     
	 <p>Ooops, I forgot one very important member of the administration who
     is working night and day on this problem. Karen Hughes has the
     vital responsibility of changing the negative perception of
     Americans in the middle east, which is key to their new strategy of
     combatting violent extremism. I hear her latest campaign is about
     to be revealed: she's going to tell those terrorists and jihadists
     that the US is a compassionate crusader --- an occupier with
     optimism --- an inspirational imperialist with integrity! Once
     those terrorists hear the mellifluous melody of her awesome
     alliteration, just like the Red States they will all fall in love.
     
	 <p>Update: James Wolcott tells us that Michael Ledeen is just hopping
     mad about all this "re-evaluation" business. You can certainly
     understand why. He's the guy who seriously made the case to invade
     France and Germany just two years ago. This has to be a blow.

     <p>Twice in the past, the president slid into a similar funk, first
     permitting himself to be gulled by the Saudis into believing he had
     to make a deal with Arafat before he was entitled to liberate Iraq,
     then permitting the British to drag out the run-up to Operation
     Iraqi Freedom with endless votes in the Security Council. Each time
     he realized his error, and pressed on with greater vigor. Its time
     for him to do that again."

     <p>The 101st Keyboarders need to saddle up their Aaron chairs and cock
     their control buttons. This is bigger even than the GWOT. It's a
     fight for the Codpiece and that's a battle only they know how to
     fight with the relish and expertise that's called for. They may
     have lost their beloved leader General Sullivan, but they will
     valiantly carry on without him. These brave souls will never give
     in, never give in, never give in.
     
     <h>Spent Capital
     
	 <p>I'm Baaaack. Sorry for the interruption in service folks. I've been
     indisposed, but now I'm right as rain and ready to rumble. Or
     thunder. Or something...
     <p>And what do I see first thing? Bush's Political Capital Spent,
     Voices in Both Parties Suggest. Sweet.

     <p>Two days after winning reelection last fall, President Bush
     declared that he had earned plenty of "political capital, and now I
     intend to spend it." Six months later, according to Republicans and
     Democrats alike, his bank account has been significantly drained.
     
	 <p>In the past week alone, the Republican-led House defied his veto
     threat and passed legislation promoting stem cell research; Senate
     Democrats blocked confirmation, at least temporarily, of his choice
     for U.N. ambassador; and a rump group of GOP senators abandoned the
     president in his battle to win floor votes for all of his judicial
     nominees.
     
	 <p>With his approval ratings in public opinion polls at the lowest
     level of his presidency, Bush has been stymied so far in his
     campaign to restructure Social Security. On the international
     front, violence has surged again in Iraq in recent weeks,
     dispelling much of the optimism generated by the
     purple-stained-finger elections back in January, while allies such
     as Egypt and Uzbekistan have complicated his campaign to spread
     democracy.
     
	 <p>The series of setbacks on the domestic front could signal that the
     president has weakened leverage over his party, a situation that
     could embolden the opposition, according to analysts and
     politicians from both sides. Bush faces the potential of a summer
     of discontent when his capacity to muscle political Washington into
     following his lead seems to have diminished and few easy victories
     appear on the horizon.

     <p>Well, yes. But it's because he never had any political capital to
     begin with. This was a big lie, just like the alleged mandate. He
     had neither. There was just enough of a fading vestige of 9/11
     around (and enough of the media's unctuous sycophancy) to keep a
     little of that hi-pro glow on the Prez. But he never had a mandate
     for any of his policies. These guys rode a wave, they didn't win a
     landslide.
     
	 <p>At some point hype, like helium, dissipates and you are left with
     nothing but the flaccid balloon. Junior and Rove are not geniuses
     or political wizards who have reshaped politics in their image.
     They are the guys who got in on a hummer in 2000 and were in office
     on 9/11. Period. The only truly impressive legislative victory has
     been passing massive tax cuts for rich people, which is hardly a
     difficult thing to ask politicians to do when you also break open
     the pork barrel and let them gorge on all the pig they can possibly
     stomach. That's quite an achievement.
     
	 <p>The fact is that Junior has been a lame duck since January 21,
     2005. And I believe he's happy with that. All he ever cared about
     was getting legitimately elected and doing what his father did not
     --- win a second term. He doesn't give a damn about legacy. As he
     famously said, "History, we dont know. Well all be dead."
     
	 <p>He's just going through the motions, like a high school senior
     who's already been accepted to college. The Republican caucus is
     under new leadership --- the GOP PepBoys Dobson, Frist and DeLay.
     I'm beginning to look forward to 2006.