Month: February 2007

The topic below was originally posted in my blog, the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

An office colleague and I have engaged in an ongoing debate about the merits of political bosses from the pre-Watergate era over the current system. We’ll call him Buck. Buck’s a generation older than me, fought in Vietnam and describes himself as a “political agnostic.”

He’s not a liberal and politically incorrect is an understatement to describe Buck. Buck is a foul-mouthed renaissance man and delightfully entertaining. He would make a terrific blogger! Buck is vehemently opposed to the policies of the Bush Administration and nostalgic for the era of smoke filled rooms.
As an unapologetic liberal, I champion an open process that elevates people over elites selecting our leaders. Buck considers me an impractical idealist and argues that during the era of party bosses an unfit person such as George W. Bush could never have become president. I counter that elites from such an era were overly devoted to the status quo. Buck retorts that it took smoke filled room masters such as LBJ to pass civil rights legislation and Nixon to open diplomatic relations with China. I return fire and indict both presidents as warmongers who subverted the Constitution. And we’ll keep going back and forth.

As much as it pains me to admit it, I’m forced to acknowledge the era of smoke filled rooms was superior to the system we have now. At least candidates for president were vetted for their intelligence and capability to some degree in those days. Now it’s all about style, sound bites and raising money to compete in an obscene frontloaded primary schedule. Think of it this way: does anyone believe Harry Truman could’ve raised enough money to compete with Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama under the current system? That said, I do not advocate a return to the era of party bosses selecting presidential nominees while smoking cigars.

Instead, I’d like to see a grass roots movement pressuring both parties to adopt the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) proposal promoting four regional primaries in 2012. Frankly, I’m more passionate about that cause then the current crop of presidential candidates in either party and believe it’s necessary for our democracy’s salvation.

The concept proposed by NASS is rather simple. Tradition is respected and both Iowa and New Hampshire are allowed to go one-two as before. The remaining forty-eight states would participate in four regional primaries. Every four years the order these primaries are held will rotate.

NASS’s proposal offers numerous benefits. First and foremost, every state has an opportunity to influence the outcome. As a New Yorker, I’ve long resented how my home state with its large population and diversity has mattered so little in selecting major party nominees for the White House. And if New York moves up their primary date to increase its influence and benefit Guiliani and Clinton, the process will be debased even more. A rotating regional primary schedule eliminates the need for states to move up on the calendar right behind Iowa and New Hampshire.

Another benefit is more time for candidates to be properly vetted and compete on a platform of ideas. The compressed schedule we currently have discourages exchanges about substance and instead facilitates “horserace” coverage. With both parties effectively selecting their nominees in February 2008, substantive debates about important issues won’t take place when voters are paying attention. The candidates will be debating at forums for contests deciding their party’s nomination in early 2008 this year.

Regional primaries will both shorten and lengthen the presidential campaign. Currently, the campaign to become a major party nominee starts a year too early and ends too quickly. NASS’s proposal will allow candidates to begin campaigning in the latter part of 2011. With the primary struggles extended, there will be more time to scrutinize policy distinctions among the candidates and assess their respective temperaments under pressure.

Most importantly, winning won’t be contingent upon which candidate can purchase the most airtime in a bloc of large states. Suppose New York joins New Jersey and California in moving its primary date up to February 5th? That means a candidate would have to get their message out through aid buys in the three biggest media markets in the country on the same day. What chance would a worthy underdog have?

I had hoped Russ Feingold would seek higher office. I’m now relieved he didn’t. This champion of public financing would’ve had no choice but to opt out of the public finance system to have any hope. Internet/netroots fundraising by itself would not have been enough to keep him competitive and I doubt he could’ve tapped into other donors sufficiently.

Finally, I believe adopting NASS’s proposals would generate more interest among the public and increase voter turnout. As Howard Dean has previously said, he’d rather have 100% turnout and lose because ultimately it means a healthier democracy.

While my preference is for both parties to participate, I don’t believe Republicans could be persuaded to make the first leap. Hence, I’m hoping activists inside the Democratic Party can successfully pressure the donkeys to give in. Why not pressure Democratic candidates for president this year to adopt NASS’s proposals in 2012 should they become their party’s nominee? Hell, lets make it part of the platform.

Democratic Party insiders shiver at the thought of real competition. They’re under the misconception that the strongest party unifies behind a candidate in February. In their timid hearts, Democrats still competing while Republicans rally behind a nominee means automatic defeat.

I say just the opposite is true. Let’s put capitalism in our politics and embrace competition. If Democrats adopt these rules and the GOP doesn’t, the public will pay far more attention to the Democrats and be more inclined to vote for their nominee in November. Furthermore, Democrats will become more identified with electoral reform and perceived as the party that believes in elevating the people’s voice over corporate insiders . It would demonstrate a powerful contrast with the Republicans and might further expand the Democratic Party base among independents.

If I’m right, the GOP will be compelled to follow in 2016 out of self-interest to remain competitive. Buck will no doubt accuse me of naïve idealism. And I’ll counter that idealism is required to salvage our democracy. For damn sure our salvation will not come from obsessing over whether Obama or Clinton have the upper hand for Hollywood’s money. Let’s start Project 2012.

I’m very proud to say that Blogpac just announced West Virginia Blue is a recipient of the 2nd round of grants to help develop the netroots movement.

This is exciting news on many levels for me. When I began the site in August 2006, I had been a relatively veteran poster at Daily Kos.

I’d seen the way the site had helped develop many Democratic activists. The site helped inform us. The site helped motivate us. The site empowered us.

I wanted the same thing to happen in West Virginia.
We’re a diverse state with many challenges — not the least of which is our geography. Those of us in the Eastern Panhandle know little of the problems in Southern West Virginia. In many counties schools are having to consolidate due to a lack of students. Here in this area schools cannot be built fast enough to keep up with the enrollment.

Our traditional news sources seldom cover other parts of the state and when they do seldom provide context. The lack of quality coverage of politicians like Shelley Moore Capito in between elections has allowed her to manipulate the voters into believing she is a moderate who cares for the people of West Virginia when the reality is she’s beholden to corporate and right wing interests who have profit margins and executive pay as their priorities.

Before 2000, I took little interest in politics. I voted, I donated to charities and causes I believed in and by that I thought I did my part. Too many of us have been apathetic as to what the government did in our name and we’ve paid the price for it by having right wing corporate media sell us a false bill of goods. We’ve seen the manipulation of reality and people’s emotions lead to Republican victories and put an incompetent, ill-equipped administration in the White House. We’ve seen the price paid with record deficits, terrorist threats ignored before the worst criminal act occurred in U.S. history, international good will squandered and old alliances tattered.

Blogs have the power to inform and unite us. Ask Democratic Senator Jim Webb and countless others how effective blogs can be at helping campaigns. But it’s not just campaigns that can be helped. It’s a long-term movement. And that’s what I’m here for: the long haul. We’ve not rested between election cycles. Politicians like Ms. Capito aren’t going to be able to rest on their laurels in between elections and have people forget their votes and their words in between. This is a democracy. We’re here to remind the politicians they work for us.

The Sun-Times reporter traveling with Barack blogs frequently. This column shows where he’s getting help in the House of Representatives. It might also give a hint as to who might be in the “gang” that BooMan was speaking about on Monday. The gang that a candidate would take to leadership with him.

Make no mistake. I hate the n-word. I just hate censorship more.

New York’s resolution is not binding and merely calls on residents to stop using the slur. Leaders of the nation’s largest city also hope to set an example.

Other municipalities have already passed similar measures in a debate that rose to a fever pitch late last year after “Seinfeld” actor Michael Richards spewed the word repeatedly at a comedy club in Los Angeles.

At New York’s City Hall, supporters cheered passage of the resolution, with many of them wearing pins featuring a single white “N” with a slash through it.

Hip-hop pioneer Kurtis Blow Walker said blacks need to stop using the word so “we can elevate our minds to a better future.”

Others argue that use of the word by blacks is empowering, that reclaiming a slur and giving it a new meaning takes away its punch. Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx, for example, said he would not stop using the word, and did not see anything inappropriate about blacks using it within their own circles.

But in the uproar over Richards’ outburst, black leaders including the Rev. Jesse Jackson and California Rep. Maxine Waters said it is impossible to paper over the epithet’s origins and ugly history of humiliating blacks. They challenged the public and the entertainment industry to stop using the epithet.

And can we please take poor Michael Richards out of the stockade. That he has become the emblem for racism is, well… deeply indicative of the real problem.

I absolutely believed Michael Richards when he said he was not a racist. I think that’s why he upset people so much. He reminded us all of what lurks in our deep subconscious, in that dark place right next to our fears.  A friend of mine calls them “isms.” My friend is a gay man who speaks of his own subconscious homophobia. He points out that these are inculcated attitudes that we ideologically and intellectually deplore. They can snap to the surface when we’re triggered, as Richards was, by aggressive heckling.

What’s worse. Richards’s meltdown — explained beautifully by Elayne Boosler — or this:

State Senators Robert Ford and Darrell Jackson are considered key black political leaders in South Carolina because they backed John Edwards in 2004 and managed to hand Edwards 37 percent of the vote in a state where half the primary voters are black.

For those of you who don’t understand why we keep harping on early primaries, it’s simple. If a presidential candidate wins an early primary state — like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina — deep-pocket donors keep funding their campaigns.

The losing candidates are well on their way to becoming also-rans.

So you tell me why Ford and Jackson found it necessary to tell reporters that they were driving Miss Hillary so early in the game.

“It’s a slim possibility for [Obama] to get the nomination, but then everybody else is doomed,” Ford told a reporter with the Associated Press on Tuesday.

“Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose because he’s black and he’s top of the ticket. We’d lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything,” he said. “I’m a gambling man. I love Obama,” Ford said. “But I’m not going to kill myself.”

This, from a man who claims in his bio that from 1966 to 1972, at the height of the civil rights movement, he was arrested 73 times as a staff member with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

Here’s a tip. One has tangible consequences.

Anyone who thinks we can unwrite our “isms,” or thoughtcrimes, by excising a word from the lexicon is naive. We would do better to grab hold of teachable moments, like Richards’s outburst, and open a real dialog. Anything less is just sticking our fingers in our ears and going, “la, la, la, la!”

Crossposted from The Blogging Curmudgeon.

I don’t know what better evidence there could be that Dick Cheney has come unhinged than this:

Who was the mystery official on Vice President
Dick Cheney’s plane? There were plenty of clues about his identity if you read a transcript of his remarks.

The rules were simple. The official who briefed reporters on Cheney’s plane could be identified only as a senior administration official. But the high-ranking official wasn’t very careful about concealing his identity as Cheney wrapped up his round-the-world trip with surprise stops in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Pay attention to the pronouns — me and I — that the official uses in describing the vice president’s mission.

“The reason the president wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world on both sides of the Afghan-Pakistan border,” the senior administration official said Tuesday.

OK, it was apparent the briefer was Cheney himself and that he gave himself away. White House press secretary Tony Snow encouraged the vice president’s office Wednesday to identify the briefer by name but he was turned down. “The vice president’s office made its feelings known,” he said with a grin that suggested a very senior official was behind the decision.

The White House distributed a text of the official’s comments on Air Force Two as Cheney flew from Afghanistan to Oman before beginning his flight back to Washington. The transcript did not spell out why the official on Cheney’s plane would not be quoted by name.

We’ve all laughed about the ‘undisclosed locations’ and all that. But Cheney is losing his grip on sanity. He won’t admit that he was the one that talked to the press? He can’t even phrase his ‘senior administration official’ remarks in a way the hides his identity? Man. He really needs Scooter back. The man can’t do anything right without him. At least he didn’t tell the press to quote him as a ‘former hill staffer’.

Luna shows off her spotted tongue.
The weather has been alternating between hot and drizzly, with occassional muggy.  Tasmanians don’t do muggy, that’s for the topsiders and the crocodiles up in Darwin.

…War is supposed to be hell and we are going to make sure that this reputation is not tarnished by our troops. Our troops are taught that dying for one’s country is not an objective; making the enemy die for his is…

“Fighting for peace is like screwing for virginity.”
—(Anonymous, Marine Corps saying)

It seems to me that America is being given a ringside seat at what can be termed a calamity for civilization through our “association” with Iraq and the Iraq War. We are being allowed to witness the inhumanity that lurks within each of us individually and all of us collectively. We have been allowed to see how little “coaching” it takes to turn a “people” from a definable human society into something so subhuman that no animal species could be accused of allowing this to exist in their “culture”. For those Americans with an “eye to see or an ear to hear”, Iraq today represents everything any human could imagine as being something he “wouldn’t wish on his worst enemy”.

The lesson here for each American is that this fate also awaits we Americans who one day will have something more than our money which our “leaders” want.

Mere money is not enough for our breed of tyrants. Ultimately, they will want what Hitler wanted from “his” people – unquestioned obedience and unquestioned sacrifice to his/their slightest whim.

Before the age of their “enlightenment” and their introduction to democracy, the various religious sects within Iraq lived and worked together, but worshiped separately. Today, thanks to their having been given natural resources that our country needs, every aspect of life in “the cradle of civilization” has been turned into an unimaginable hell by our leaders. Today through the CIA, Pentagon and Mossad sponsorship of organized religious strife within the Iraqi society, there is no longer a civilization. Today there is nothing but chaos, hatred and terrorism as each segment of the former culture turns on its neighbor. The culture is feeding on itself. And that is just what our homegrown and Israeli- grown warmongers want. How can the Iraqis defend themselves and their resources against “The Empire” if they are determined to kill the neighbors with whom they lived and worked before we got there. The objective is to foster and perpetuate hatred that leads to division and therefore to a disorganized attempt for the Iraqis to protect themselves and their property. (Of course, right now it looks as if they are perfectly capable of protecting themselves. The Iraqis have brought virtual defeat – or at least never ending war – to the most powerful military in the world).

Our CIA and assorted military intelligence organizations have worked for years with the most fiendish secret police organizations in the world to perfect “interrogation”/tortures that are too gruesome to even contemplate while prancing around the world stage in the costumes of “freedom, democracy, enlightenment, dignity” and above all “arrogance”. We are benevolent conquerors. We are from the US government and we are here to help you. We are here to kidnap you, put you in a prison from which the only escape is death and to torture you in the name of “winning the war on terror that we have manufactured”. “Don’t you understand”? “This is what freedom means”. “This is what democracy will mean to you when you get the ‘hang of it'”

This is what all the fuss about torture of enemies is about. This is the reason the world had a Geneva Convention. In today’s war, Alberto Gonzales tells us that this agreement between nations isn’t applicable to our present “war”because we aren’t fighting a nation state. Therefore, bringing our soldiers down to the barbaric level of the enemy is quite acceptable in the eyes of the “Great Decider”.

The Geneva Convention was not and is not a quaint piece of paper with no relevance today. This is what the world learned about the horrors of war and the barbarism that awaits expression by combatants. This lesson was learned the hard way by our soldiers in every war we have fought during our entire history. How would Alberto Gonzales know anything about the reasons for this agreement between nations? He has never seen fit to learn first hand about the reasons for this convention. Finally, war was “civilized” by the world community by adopting the Geneva Convention. Today, that agreement lies in ruins because of a fool and his criminal advisors – none of whom have ever had the courage to serve their country in a war. It is up to our 19 year old video game playing soldiers to pay for the sins and the crimes of their leaders (sic) as these criminals make a mockery of the Geneva Convention and the protection it provided our soldiers. Our soldiers will pay for Abu Ghraib and our black prisons and rendition for a very long time to come. “Civilized War” has been killed by our leaders whose history is that of cowardice and treachery – as they wage war for peace.

Any combat veteran will tell you there are no such thing as “civilized wars”. It is a matter of killing before you are killed – and in Iraq that may involve carrying a “throw-down” shovel in case you kill a hadj that hasn’t gotten around to trying to kill you yet. Today’s war is a culmination of all the things we have learned since WWII (except how to avoid war). Today’s war(s) are the result of our children’s having mastered all the gruesome and violent video games they find to entertain themselves, the dumbing down of our educational system, morals passed to us by Hollywood’s silver screen of hedonism, the totally mind destroying effects of television and a relentless lack of morality from our politicians, our friends, our neighbors and ourselves. All this bad experience and lack of a moral direction as a nation has led us inevitably to Abu Ghraib, and charges of our military personnel killing innocent civilians – including children – at close quarters. (It is still all right to kill civilians whether they are children, infirm, women or elderly if you do it from a distance). We don’t think about charging the gunship pilot or the pilots of bomb and missile platforms with crimes against humanity for the “collateral” killing of these people). We don’t think about pursuing the really guilty – like our leaders – (sic) for the barbaric actions of our troops. No, our troops are taught to kill without remorse. (There will be plenty of time for remorse when our troops are back home trying to get a night’s sleep without nightmares and the screams of the “enemy” and ones comrades).

No, war is supposed to be hell and we are going to make sure that this reputation is not tarnished by our troops. Our troops are taught that dying for one’s country is not an objective; making the enemy die for his is. How he dies, what honor is involved in killing him is not in the vocabulary of those who design our wars. Our leaders (sic) are not even virtuous enough to design “just” wars. No, any old excuse for war will do. There is money to be made. Our old weapons can be sold to our next enemy. There are new devilish, unimagined weapons to be designed and tested on new battlefields – all at the expense of the gullible, patriotic electorate. How can our nation lose on a deal like this?

It seems to me that we citizens would learn from history and the examples of previous wars, but that is not to be. First, we aren’t taught history – except by John Wayne – as he fights the “Indians” in our West or fights on the “Sands of Iwo Jima” or as a Green Beret in Viet Nam. Each of his causes is righteous and although the enemy “fights a good fight” he is no match for the “justness” of our causes and our patriotism to genocide or “just plain old making money”.

It seems to me that we citizens would learn that although wars are great little “money making machines”, someone has to pay for Halliburton’s no-bid contracts and Lockheed’s “smart bombs”. George Bush sold we gullibles on the theory that the Iraqis should pay with their oil for our benevolence in freeing them from the oppression of Saddam Hussein – or was it the atomic and biological weapons they didn’t have that they were supposed to pay for? One becomes confused with all the reasons we found for them to pay us for destroying their country, its infrastructure, its society and poisoning them with depleted uranium contamination for the next 4.5 billion years. We didn’t tell them that as an added bonus, and at almost no extra charge, we would relieve them of the worry of how to spend 8.8 billion dollars of their reconstruction funds by stealing them. We didn’t dwell on what would happen to Saddam’s Rafidain Bank and its 17 trillion dollars in assets when they became “free”. Instead we taught them new torture techniques using electric drills that our CIA has been perfecting for years; we gave them “death squads” perfected from our experience in Central America and run by our very own CIA and Pentagon. How could any country not be proud to accept and be grateful for such kind offers?

Conclusion:

It is hard to imagine a country more depraved than ours at this particular point in the history of the world. It is hard to imagine, even the Roman Empire as it descended headlong into the abyss of its own decline and destruction, being more oblivious to the obvious consequences of its actions than we Americans are today. Our latest war is grinding toward the infinity planned by its architects while our war designers put two more simultaneous wars on the “keep warm” drawing board. Iran has upset our chief moron because it refuses to appear worried by his idiocy; North Korea has a lot more people they are willing to lose than we do. So, the prognosis for the very, very sick United States is not encouraging.

by Nolan K. Anderson [send him email], who is a retired engineer and a veteran of Korea who was once a “conservative” until he found there was nothing left to conserve and as a veteran hates to see a tour in Korea go to waste. Nolan is a Populist Party columnist.

It’s totally unrealistic, but I think the netroots would make more progress for the country if we ignored the Presidential race and even the Senate races, and just focused on electing progressives to local, state, and House races. But, obviously, people are going to be most interested in the presidency. The problem for the netroots is that we don’t have a champion in the race.

If there is any kind of consensus at all, that consensus is that it would be a shame if Hillary Clinton won the nomination. It’s a little harder to answer why there is this anti-Hillary feeling. Part of it is over her vote authorizing force in Iraq. But that alone doesn’t distinguish her from Kerry, Edwards, Biden, or Dodd. Her refusal to apologize for that vote or call it a mistake isn’t helpful for those that would otherwise be inclined to forgive her, but that doesn’t explain the anti-Hillary feeling either.

There are some other factors at play. Electing a Clinton feels a little like electing a monarch. There is also an element of Clinton fatigue. No one wants to discuss Bill’s sex life. And there is concern that Hillary is so polarizing that she will hurt the Democrats chances in many areas of the country. All of this is a concern. But the real issue with Hillary is her close relationship with the Democratic Leadership Council. And the DLC has emerged in the Bush years as an opponent of the netroots and an opponent of Howard Dean, the 50-State plan, and all the different organizations that have spun out of Dean’s campaign.

It isn’t only the DLC that is hostile to the netroots. Outfits like The New Republic have also made themselves into enemies of the netroots. They work very hard to marginalize us and paint us as radicals. We also receive this treatment from the bigfoot press. Reporters like Adam Nagourney, David Broder, Richard Cohen, Thomas Friedman, and Joe Klein have all used their columns and articles to slam the netroots. Their most typical attacks aim to paint us as radicals that will lead the Democrats astray by pushing them too far to the left. Our biggest sin is in pushing the Democrats to oppose the war and do something to end it.

This has been the case ever since Howard Dean first questioned the wisdom of invading Iraq and it continues to be the case even after the bloodletting of the midterms.

Hillary Clinton is the representative of this common wisdom. You will hear her allies mouth these talking points over and over again. There is simply no way for us to make common cause with her because her operation is so fundamentally opposed to what we do and they do not think and never have thought that opposing this war was politically acceptable.

In spite of this reality, which is quite clear to most inhabitants of the blogosphere, Hillary Clinton remains enormously popular among rank and file Democrats. Her favorability among Democrats is 87%-10%. And, as Chris Bowers points out, Hillary is not only leading in the polls, but she is also leading as people’s second choice.

Bowers argues that Clinton is so strong that she can only be defeated by a large field of candidates. Since she is the second choice for supporters of Edwards and Obama, if either dropped out it would benefit Clinton.

He also argues that Edwards and Obama supporters should not tear each other down because they need both candidates to be strong for either to have any chance at beating Clinton. In other words, Edwards and Obama supporters should call a truce as part of a larger anti-Hillary strategy.

It’s nice advice but not very realistic. Campaigns cannot control their supporters like that. In my opinion, there isn’t any prospect of the netroots coalescing behind a single alternative to Hillary. Nor is there any prospect that supporters of Richardson will play nice with supporters of Obama or vice-versa.

But there is one thing that everyone that doesn’t support Hillary can do. And that is to take down her favorables among rank and file Democrats. If she maintains an 87-10 split there is no way she can lose.

But there are still problems with this. First of all, many of the typical attacks on Hillary are unfair. For example, she is definitely electable. She is definitely capable and qualified. Which leads me to my second point. Hillary is still the most likely Democratic nominee. And we don’t want to do the Republicans work for them by spreading mean-spirited and unfair attacks on our most likely nominee.

This all makes for a potentially toxic stew where the left and the netroots tears itself apart. I actually predict that this will happen for all the reasons I’ve laid out. I don’t think there is anyway it can be avoided as long as Hillary is ahead in the polls and is considered the clear front-runner. For me, this makes it all the more important that she doesn’t win the nomination.

And to be absolutely clear, I do not want Hillary Clinton to be our nominee but I don’t think she would be a bad President. Aside from his poor judgment with Monica Lewinsky, I don’t think her husband was a bad President. I have a lot of problems with individual policies that Clinton pursued, but when I compare him to other recent Presidents I have to give him high marks. I don’t think a Hillary presidency would be the end of the world. But I do hope we can do better. And I intend to oppose her candidacy because I think we need to move in a much different direction as a nation. I’m not sure that any of the candidates are likely to move in the directions I would like. But I know Hillary won’t. And it’s impossible to work with a campaign that sees us as the enemy.

And, yes, Paul Begala and James Carville should step down from their jobs at CNN unless they’re are prepared to appear with a big I SUPPORT HILLARY stamped on their foreheads.

this diary is dedicated to all who suffer because of war

we love and support our troops, just as we love and support the Iraqi people – without exception, or precondition, or judgment

we have no sympathy for the devil.

we acknowledge the power to act that is in us

cross-posted at MyLeftWing, BooMan Tribune, and my blog.

image and poem below the fold

A man cries as he waits to claim the body of a relative who was killed in a suicide bomb attack at the Baghdad Economy and Administration College February 25, 2007. A suicide bomber wearing a vest packed with explosives killed 40 people in the Baghdad college on Sunday, a day after Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki expressed optimism about a security crackdown in the capital.
REUTERS/Kareem Raheem (IRAQ)

A Calculus of Readiness  
by Liz Waldner  

I, too, come from the city of dolls.
A small palm is my umbrella.
This takes care of above
but below, the blind river of sadness rolls
on and in it, a hand is always reaching up
to pick fish from the night-time sky.

The lines on the palm of the hand lure a trout
with a strand of hair from the head of a doll.
The bait is the hope for a hand on your brow.
Shadows play on the wall. Or the face of a doll.
The plants eyeing each other
is all.

I would not call the stars generous.
They don’t cry enough for dolls to play Drink Me.
They don’t cast a covenant’s fishy rainbow
yet leaf faces watch the open window
where they hang far and hard.
The rein of starlight a second hand

with which to play Go Fish.
Now Give me a hand, plants. Now give me
good-night, stars.

– – –

FAIR USE NOTICE: This essay contains images and excerpts the use of which have not been pre-authorized. This material is made available for the purpose of analysis and critique, as well as to advance the understanding of political, media, and cultural issues.

The ‘fair use’ of such material is provided for under U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with U.S. Code Title 17, Section 107, material in this essay (along with attributions to original sources) is viewable for educational and intellectual purposes. Anyone interested in using any copyrighted material from this essay for any reason that goes beyond ‘fair use’ must first obtain permission from the copyright owner.

(cross-posted at glad you asked)

i guess now that his “former hill staffer” and former right hand man is waiting for a jury of his peers to decide said staffer’s fate, our cartoon-villain vice president is stuck pimping his own “background” …
from reuters:

the senior bush administration official who briefed anonymously on vice president dick cheney’s visit to afghanistan and pakistan sounded suspiciously like, well, cheney himself.

the white house transcript of the tuesday briefing left little room for doubt as to the official’s identity, including this opening sentence:

“the reason the president wanted me to come, obviously, is because of the continuing threat that exists in this part of the world on both sides of the afghan-pakistan border,” the official said.

cheney had just left afghanistan, where a suicide bomb attack against bagram air base killed up to 14 people. cheney used the visit to the two countries to press for stronger action against the taliban and al qaeda.

“let me just make one editorial comment here. i’ve seen some press reporting (that) says, ‘cheney went in to beat up on them, threaten them.’ that’s not the way i work,” the official said.

the official was speaking on “background,” a common practice in washington that means he could only be identified by the euphemism, “senior administration official.” media critics have long complained about the practice, saying public officials should be identified.

the “senior administration officials” often make sure they leave no clues to their identity in these sessions.

but in this case, the official blew his own cover.

“i would describe my sessions both in pakistan and afghanistan as very productive,” the official aboard cheney’s plane said.

cheney arrived back in washington early on wednesday and briefed president george w. bush on his trip.

the “senior administration official” full press report can be seen in its entirety on the white house web site.