Month: June 2007

The latest rumor making the rounds on the intertubes is that Markos and I work for the CIA. If so, they pay like crap and they never buy anything from the store. Who are you secretly working for? And are you behind all this silliness in the UK?

cross-posted at skippy and a veritable cornucopia of other community blogs.

in a little known interview with fark.gov, markos moulitsas, aka the great and powerful kos, admitted to actually being a future reincarnation of a clone of karl rove which came back in time to destroy the blogosphere before it could usurp george bush’s power.

the interview was actually given in 2010, but the crack i t staff at skippy international was able to trace the isp footprints foward 3 years into the future (it has something to do with our servers being cross-connected with the clock radio in the break room) and was able to find kos’s own words actually admitting that he’s out to destroy everyone whom he purged from his blogroll earlier this year.
an except from the fark.gov interview:

f:  so you’re actually a clone.

mm:  yes.  i’m the 23rd generation of a karl rove clone experiment conducted in by the bill frist institute of flat earth science in the year 2525.

f:  in the year 2525?  is man still alive?

mm:  yes, and women are kept in pens for men’s pleasure and to make babies.  although we don’t need to make babies anymore because the grand exhalted leader jenna bush xiv has declared stem cell research legal for all white people who make more than $500 million a year.

f:  adjusted for inflation, that must be…

mm:  not all that much.  a coke costs $100,000.

f:  so, you’re really karl rove, come back in time to destroy the blogosphere.

mm:  yes.  it was decided by the dick cheney 5000 computer-bot that the only way to ensure the great republican revolution had staying power was to make the left look looney.

f:  and you’re doing that now?

mm:  well, first we tried sending a real fat guy who made goofy movies back in time, but that didn’t work out.

f:  michael moore?

mm:  chris farley.  who knew heroin was so much fun?  so, anyway, it was my mission to come back to pre-21st century berkeley, start up a small internet concern, then convince everybody that if we banded together, we could change the world.

f:  did you?

mm:  of course.  my powers of persuasion are legendary.  and i’m incredibly charming in person.

f:  i’ll admit to wanting to have sex you with you right now.

mm:  understandable.  using these great charms, my hologram jerome armstrong and i were able to convince the majority of left-leaning computer geek slackers to vote for the democratic party.

f:  as opposed to someone who would actually stand up to bush?

mm:  exactly.  we were able to stave off actual grassroots change and let the glorious republican mass mind-control take place.  now the future is one of peace and prosperity for old rich white men everywhere inside the beltway.  oh, by the way, i’m going to have to kill you, you know.

f:  i guessed.  but can we have sex first?

mm:  no.

f:  aaaaarrrrrghhhhggghhh!!!!!!  my spleen!!!

it is our sincere hope that by publishing this interview we can change the course of history, and…

arrrggghh!! our spleen!

It probably seems like I’m mining the Washington Express for content today, but it just happens a couple of items in the Express caught my eye today. The first I already posted, the second was actually a comment in the Express’ Blog Log, from a Defamer reader, on Paris Hilton’s interview with Larry King yesterday.

She is not stupid, just a completely uninformed human being. She is what happens when you are not pushed to be challenged.

Maybe I’ve been reading way to much about George W. Bush lately but it strikes me that Paris has that quality in common with the prez, and it might make her uniquely qualified to occupy the oval office some day.

Much has been made, much ink spilled and much bandwidth burned about the uninformed state of that other heir to a family fortune, though in his case it’s called “incuriosity.” And while in Hilton’s case it may not have affected anyone other than whoever happened to be sharing the road with her during her boozy with of joy-riding (don’t people like her have chauffeurs or something?), in the president’s case, it’s a fatal incuriosity, not for him but for considerably more than were endangered by Hilton’s hi-jinx.

He cites the now-famous August 2001 CIA report headlined: “Bin Laden determined to strike in U.S.” According to journalist Ron Suskind, Bush dismissed his CIA briefer with the remark, “All right. You’ve covered your ass now.”

“It’s impossible to know,” Gore replied when asked if a full-scale FBI mobilization would have stopped the hijackings.

“We use the old truism, ‘Curiosity killed the cat,’ ” he added. “Well, ‘incuriosity’ can cause great damage to nations. … The ‘incuriosity’ in this case was clear and chilling. To have received such a warning — and not asked any questions, and not called any meetings — I don’t pretend to understand it.

“The most important part of intelligence is the consumer: The consumer is the president of the United States,” Gore argued.

There are some similarities, however. In his book The Assault on Reason, Gore goes into a bit more detail.

There are people in both political parties who worry that there is something deeply troubling about President Bush’s relationship to reason, his disdain of facts, and his lack of curiosity about any information that might produce a deeper understanding of the problems and policies that he is supposed to wrestle with on behalf of the country.

Yet Bush’s incuriosity and seeming immunity to doubt is sometimes interpreted by people who see and hear him on television as evidence of the strength of his conviction, even though it is this very inflexibility–this willful refusal even to entertain alternative opinions or conflicting evidence–that poses the most serious danger to our country.

In both cases, Paris and the prez, it’s willful ignorance that’s the problem. Neither of them has to learn anything or know anything, the difference is that in Hilton’s case, she just doesn’t care, while in the president’s case he’s actively hostile to information that doesn’t jibe with what he’s decided to believe. (Some people call it stubbornness, but others call it being “resolute”). I’ve been up to my ears in presidential psycho-babble this week, as I finally got around to reading Bush on the Couch, in which Justin Frank described just why Bush can’t afford to admit new information because it might shatter what Frank calls the president’s “protective delusion”.

Freud calls megalomania a protective delusion of power and greatness that serves to as a defense mechanism against fear, against paranoid anxieties. In response to fears of persecution, the megalomaniac individual develops a false sense of invulnerability—a belief that the self is not only great but all-knowing. He magically replaces hope for the future with an omnipotent sense of knowing the future. he knows what the right way is—to him, it is that simple. This characteristic is what makes Bush different from other presidents, all of whom had significant lust for power. This is about omnipotent, magical grandiosity that attacks all thought. he celebrates his ignorance, which helps him preserve his omnipotent sense of self.

Reading that makes clear Bush’s considerable appeal to a number of Americans. If the country were a patient, supine upon Dr. Frank’s couch, it would pour out a long history of fears of persecution (everything from its history with lynching, to the Red Scare of the 50s, and the “culture wars” of the last few decades), a sense of invulnerability (shattered when, on 9/11, we were visited with a kind of violence that many in the world live with on a daily basis, some of whom claim is at least party a result of our policies), an omnipotent sense of knowing our destiny (that God should naturally “bless America” above any other country, or that “manifest destiny” notion that American had a “right” to possess North America — “from sea to shining sea” — despite the inconvenience that there were some people already on the continent), and magical grandiosity (because of course we can continue to promote policies that harm other people in other countries, and we can continue to deplete resources and harm our environment in the process because a solution will come from “somewhere” in time to save us, or someone will whisk us away into the sky and rescue us before the consequences of our actions and choices come due).

Paris and the prez have something else in common, that explains their popularity among some Americans, one that echos the Defamer commenter’s point. Something that, according to Frank, bridges the gap between them and Americans with far less wealth.

.. Another is that his wealth and position are so far beyond almost any of us that they are too great even to envy. Because Clinton, for example, came from a modest background and accrued his political power through his intelligence and capabilities, he presented an image of what peopel not born to power wish they could become, thus inviting feelings of envy and competition. Bush’s advantages are, on the other hand, all but unattainable: One can only be filled with wonder at his wealth and privilege…

There are some differences — Paris, for example, doesn’t make much of an effort to hide her wealth, and while there was more than a little schadenfruede over her jail sentence, there were at least a few cries that it wasn’t fair. That may be the biggest different between Paris and the prez.

Both are the beneficiaries of what last night John Edwards called “the genetic lottery.” Both were born in to wealthy families, inheriting wealth that they did little to earn. If either had been born to an average family, with all the gifts and talents they currently possess, would one be in the White House and the other on our television screens?

In Bush’s case, every business venture he attempted ended in failure, but he was often bailed out by his family or family friends because of his family’s political influence. (In fact, there’s room for debate about whether he “earned” the presidency in 2000, given the odd goings on in Florida on election night, and his preternatural calm even when the state was called for Gore, with Bar and Poppy Bush looking on while Jeb handled things in Florida.) In just about every instance where inevitable consequences would have rained down upon the head of almost anyone else, Bush had been rescued by his family, by its power and influence, or by a number of Americans who share his delusions and anxieties along with his aversion to examining either too closely.

Hilton, until her jailing, led nearly as charmed a life. At which point the consequences of her actions were visited upon her by a judge who wasn’t awed by her family’s wealth or fame. (After a sheriff sent her home for an undisclosed “psychological condition” that wouldn’t have gotten anyone else sprung from the lock-up.) And that’s where her path veers from the president, in 23 days, she lived with the consequences of her actions longer than the president ever has. (Even the state of affairs in Iraq doesn’t cause him to lose sleep. If anything, he sleeps better than ever.)

It’s unclear whether that experience will lend Paris any further depth, (though her interview with Larry King suggests it hasn’t), it may be one reason for at least some of the hostility directed towards her. She failed to get away with the ability to live above the law that her wealth and position is supposed to provide her, and that we’d like to think it would provide us if we could attain it. That most of us can never attain it means that it’s even more essential that we continue believing in its magical protection. Being told or shown otherwise is like learning [SPOILER ALERT!] that there’s no Santa Claus, well before we’re ready for that knowledge. And it can be hard to forgive anyone who lets us down in that regard, or tries to tell us. Just ask anyone who’s had the temerity to criticize the Bush administration since 9/11 until just recently.

So, Paris for prez? Sure. Why not? If she can recover from this minor brush with reality, and remain resolutely “heir-headed,” at least 30% of us will continue to love her. And even Bush has been able to cost along at that level. So far.

Crossposted from The Republic of T.

Because I got nuttin …

Most people don’t know it, or they don’t really think about it, but in the United States Senate there are different kinds of senators. This is also true in the House of Representatives. We can break the 100 senators into distinct groups (although some don’t fit neatly into any single group).

One obvious group is involved in matters of national security and/or foreign affairs. For example, Sen. Webb sits on the Armed Services, Foreign Relations, and Veteran’s Affairs committees. Sen. McCaskill sits on Homeland Security and Armed Services. Sen. Warner sits on Armed Services, Homeland Security, and Intelligence.

Another group is primarily involved in economic matters. For example, John Kerry chairs the Small Business committee and sits on Finance and Commerce. Chuck Schumer chairs the Joint Economic committee and sits on Banking and Finance. Sen. Sununu sits on the Joint Economic, Banking, and Commerce Committees.

Another group is primarily involved in domestic and social issues. They tend to gravitate to the Agriculture, Environment, and Health Education Labor & Pensions (HELP) committees. For example, Amy Klobuchar sits on Agriculture and Environment, Sherrod Brown sits on Agriculture and HELP, and Bernie Sanders sits on Environment and HELP.

Another group is primarily involved in the budget and appropriations process (and often the rules for the Senate, as well). For example, Sen. Byrd is the chairman of Appropriations and sits on the Budget and Rules committees. Sen. Inouye chairs Commerce and sits on Appropriations and Rules. Sen. Ted Stevens has the same assignments for the Republicans.

Another, smaller group is known for the nitty-gritty of policy making and bill writing. For the Democrats, this group is dominated by Sens. Tom Carper and Jeff Bingaman. For the Republicans, Sens. Domenici and Enzi. Senators in this group tend to gravitate to the Energy and Commerce committees, where some of our most complex issues are worked out. But each committee has someone that gets into the policy more than their colleagues.

This pretty much covers the main groups of senators, but there are two more worth noting (in addition to those who focus mainly on the judiciary). The first is a group that can be called the ‘communications wing’. These are senators that may not concern themselves primarily with policy but do a lot of media. Often, they are not closely aligned with their party leadership. Sens. Joe Lieberman and John McCain are the most prominent examples of this category of Senator. Others include Orrin Hatch and Joe Biden.

The final category is, of course, the party leaders. Sens. Reid, Durbin, McConnell, and Lott, and their designees.

When you look at prospective senators, you can usually guess which group they will wind up fitting into. It was predicable that social liberals like Sherrod Brown, Bernie Sanders, and Amy Klobuchar would wind up working primarily on social and domestic policy, while Sens. Webb and McCaskill would work more on issues of national security.

So, when it comes to the 2008 crop of Democratic wannabes, where do they fit in?

In the cases of Reps. Tom Allen and Mark Udall, it is easy. All we have to do is look at their current committee assignments in the House. Allen sits on Energy and Commerce (these are combined in the House) and on Budget. He’s a policy wonk. Mark Udall sits on Armed Services, Natural Resources, and Science and Technology. He could become a national security senator or he could become a policy wonk. What about some of the others?

Al Franken would seem a good fit for the domestic and social issues category, but he might fit into John Kerry and Jay Rockefeller’s mold as primarily a finance man. Bob Kerrey, if he returns, seems a natural for the national security group. Mark Warner would fit into either finance or wonkery (Webb already has the national security profile for this state).

There are many people considering runs for the Senate in ’08. Some are lawyers or Attorney Generals, some are businessmen or women, some are former Governors, some are state legislators, some are journalists, some are political activists, some are veterans. In each case, they are likely to fit into a certain mold.

Another thing to consider is what kind of senator is already serving in their state. For example, in Colorado, Sen. Salazar does Agriculture, Commerce, and Finance. Mark Udall needs to fit into a different group to best assure Colorado has maximum influence. With all the military installations in Colorado, it would pay for Udall to work on national security issues. But he could also focus on health, education, and the environment. If you are a Democrat in a state where you will have crowded primaries—like Minnesota, Georgia, or Oregon—how does each candidate complement the senator you already have?

Whenever I meet a prospective politician I ask them what committees they want to serve on if they are elected. It’s disappointing how frequently they make it clear they haven’t thought about it. One reason I warmed to candidate Patrick Murphy was because he had thought about it. He told me straight out that he wanted to serve on Armed Services and Education, and then he told me why. He currently serves on Armed Services and Intelligence. They didn’t let him become a hybrid, but kept him as a national security congressman. But, that’s okay. Murphy knew why he wanted to serve and he has an opportunity to work on matters that really matter to him.

One thing I would like to see change is the tendency to shunt any liberal that makes it into the Senate (there aren’t many) into the social and domestic areas. If we want a less hawkish foreign policy we need to stop putting hawks on the national security committees.

Juan Cole says it succinctly:

Bush said in a speech on Thursday that he hopes Iraq will be like Israel, a democracy that faces terrorist violence but manages to retain its democratic character:

‘In Israel, Bush said, “terrorists have taken innocent human life for years in suicide attacks. The difference is that Israel is a functioning democracy and it’s not prevented from carrying out its responsibilities. And that’s a good indicator of success that we’re looking for in Iraq.” ‘

These words may be the stupidest ones ever uttered by a US president. Given their likely impact on the US war effort in the Middle East, they are downright criminal.

This comment is on a par with calling our military efforts a ‘crusade’ and it’s worse than naming the Afghan mission ‘Operation Infinite Justice’.

The problem is not in the plain intent of the words. Sadly, Iraq would indeed be fortunate to reach the level of security, civil rights, and prosperity Israel enjoys. The problem is that Israel is seen by most of the Muslim world as little better than the Nazi regime. At best, it is considered a Western imperial outpost that is oppressing Muslims and gobbling up their land.

Sunni jihadists having been making this exact case. In their propaganda, we’re looking to turn Iraq into another Israel and we’re using the Shi’a to oppress the Sunni just as the Jews oppress them in Palestine. Juan Cole comments:

If Bush had said something like that in 2002, you could have written it off as inexperience and lack of knowledge of the Middle East. But he has been the sitting president for so many years, and has had so much to do with the Middle East that this faux pas is just inexcusable…

…I don’t know whether to sob in grief or tear my hair out in frustration. How much longer do we have to suffer?

It’s a good question.

(x-posted at Orange)

Where does the concept of an oath come?  Why do we, as honorable people, hold an oath with such sanctity?  These questions have been in my mind as I have witnessed, and sometimes participated in, the impeachment debate.  It touched a nerve within me again as I read Mike Stark’s excellent diary.  Nevertheless, I would like to stress that my musings here are no longer about impeachment and I rather not delve too deeply into those waters as much as possible as there are others here, on both side of the debate, who have so eloquently stated and argued, passionately, both sides of the debate.  In other words,

“I’ve come here to bury Caesar, not to praise him.”
I may perhaps, only partially, answer the questions above.  I am a budding expert at the advanced graduate level, of medieval Germanic literature.  Although there are many more explanations, I can point out where the roots of an oath lie within my own narrow field.  There are others who study the Classics, such as Homer and Virgil, as well as Eastern Literature who are also able to point out attitudes within their field as well, but I will stick to my own.

The oral and later written poetry of the early Germanic tribes was driven by the plot device and function of the oath, the blood oath, family ties and loyalty to kin.  In these old stories, we find that the act of the oath will trigger and play an all-encompassing role on the tragedy of the Saga.  It may be argued that the oath is the raison d’être of these old tales in Saga and Romance.  What does this tell us other than a good story and ripping yarn?  For one, it tells us (as literature, the musical arts, and fine arts are a reflection of society and culture) that the idea, the concept of an oath was regarded as perhaps one of the most important human qualities in human relations of the time.

Ok, but what does that have to do with today and us?

Our culture, for good or ill, is truly based on Western Civilization humanities, with influences from other cultures naturally since the United States is such a wonderful melting pot.  Truly, however, Classical and European humanities cannot be dismissed in our culture, in our way of thinking and our outlook to the material world in which we live.  Habeas Corpus is only one example of this.  In the same way, our concept of the oath was passed down to us.  The concept of the oath is larger than just an official oath, such as an oath of office.  We use it every day.  We use it in the form of promising to repay our debts, we use it when we vow ourselves to our significant other to be true and faithful, in other words, we use the concept of the oath when we give our word.

It is still strong in our culture, even our pop-culture.  Bob Mould once sang:

It used to be that a handshake was a man’s word
Now they settle arguments in court
No one trusts
Anyone’s intentions anymore

– “Compositions for the Young and Old”, Workbook

Yes, our word, our oaths to one another, is the glue that holds our society together in trust, faith, and honor.  Without our oaths, those concepts, those ideas or ideals would just be arbitrary words.  Therefore, it struck me deeply, when Madam Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated this:

“Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.” – emphasis mine.

Followed by this:

“I take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution – as does every person in our Congress.”

To be fair to Madam Speaker, I understand that she going about fighting for the system of checks and balances in a different way.  Regardless, it is also a method that I believe to be false and misguided.

This brings us to the argument of the pragmatists and the idealists on the impeachment issue.  I confess to being in the idealist camp, and very partisan about it.  Look, it is very simple, without the ideals, the idealism, behind that document we call The United States Constitution, it is only a series of arbitrary words.  Or as someone else put it in a more vernacular way: “it’s just a piece of paper”.  That is true when it is devoid of the ideals, the meaning, behind it.  In order to preserve those ideals against arbitrariness, they must never be sacrificed, even if it means fighting to the last in a lost battle.  When we lose those ideals, especially without even attempting to fight for them, we lose our souls, or more secularly, our identity to the easy, pragmatic road of arbitrariness.  It should be remembered that arbitrariness is a primary nature and quality of totalitarianism.

Allow me finally, to provide less of an abstract example, but a hypothetical example nonetheless.

In my enlisted military experience as well as my commissioned experience, I swore to similar oaths to which the members of the US Congress swear.  I gave my word of honor, on pain of death, to uphold that oath.  And before you accuse me of hyperbole, let me state that I honored that oath, under those conditions, when I earned my Combat Infantryman’s Badge on the battlefield.

Now think about this, what if a service-member on the battlefield conflicted with their sworn duty, their word of honor, is faced with a losing battle that may cost them and their peers their lives.  Furthermore, what if the service member simply stated:

“Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.”

And left the battle.  Not only taking back their word of their official oath, but also their unwritten oath to their comrades-in-arms.  Or as the Ranger Creed states:

“Never shall I fail my comrades. […]”

Now imagine if a whole unit with their officers simply stated:

“Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you can succeed.”

Do not believe for a moment that Washington D.C. is not a battlefield.  Do not for a moment believe that we are not in a political struggle and a political war within our very country.  It is not fought with bullets and air strikes but rather rhetoric and laws.  What makes this war even more significant and vital than one on a military battlefield where people die is that it is the very ideal of our identity as Americans that is at stake here.  The reason people like others and myself who join the military are willing to lay our lives down – is for those very ideals!

It is not whether we have a criminal in the White House or not.  Impeachment is not the means in itself or the desired goal: it is a necessary implied task to reach the goal.  The desired goal is to restore our ideals, it is to restore not only who we are as Americans, but to correct our past misdeeds and make ourselves better according to the code of our ideals: the Constitution.

If Madam Speaker and all the members of those hallowed halls truly  “[…] take very seriously the pledge, the oath of office that we make to the Constitution […]”, then it is time for them to honor their oaths, regardless if the battle is lost or not.  Not to us, the Democratic Party nor even We The People, but rather to the fundamental grounding of our entire identity: The United States Constitution.

They gave their word.

Welcome back.

This week we’ll be continuing with our 5×7 painting of the new Gehry building in New York City.  It is seen in the photo directly below.

When last we were together, the painting appeared as it does in the photo directly below.

Since that time I have continued working on the painting.

I have urther refined the bands of windows, adjusting the width and spacing.  Note that the shadowed window portions appear darker than the lit sections.  Also, the lit orange surfaces now have changed shade slightly.

I’ve also carefully reshaped the extreme right upper side of the structure.  It now more faithfully reflects the shape of the building.  I still need to adjust the extreme right lower side a bit.

The current state of the painting is seen in the photo directly below.

That’s about it for now.  Please join me next week for our 100th anniversary edition.  See you next week.        

The building in question? Wherever the Iraq Parliament meets (via Iraqslogger):

Yesterday, the main Sunni bloc – the Iraq Accord Front (IAF), joined the Sadrists in suspending its participation in the government. The IAF deputies had also decided to boycott the activities of the parliament last week.

The immediate reason behind the IAF decision was the prosecution of Sunni Minister As’ad al-Hashimi, who is being investigated for alleged links to murders and assassinations. But the withdrawal of the six Sunni ministers from the cabinet comes as a culmination of months of distrust and mutual threats between the Maliki administration and the Sunni coalition.

Several Iraqi and Arab news outlets saw the IAF decision as putting the legitimacy of the Maliki government in serious doubt now that –the already meager- Sunni role in the Iraqi government has been further curtailed.

Let’s check our scorecards, shall we? The Iraq Army? Given a big incomplete by US Generals. Turks and Kurds? Still on the brink of all out war. Mosques bombed or otherwise attacked this past month? Shi’ite mosques — at least 2, Sunni mosques — at least 17. Sheiks helping US forces killed in June? Six. US forces killed in June (not counting mercenaries security contractors)? 99. And now the apparent legitimacy of the “sovereign” Iraq government? Less than zero.

Viva La Surge!

Via Crooks and Liars:

As if Mitt Romney doesn’t have enough on his mind, now he has to contend with angry dog owners.

The reporter intended the anecdote that opened part four of the Boston Globe’s profile of Mitt Romney to illustrate, as the story said, “emotion-free crisis management”: Father deals with minor — but gross — incident during a 1983 family vacation, and saves the day. But the details of the event are more than unseemly — they may, in fact, be illegal.

The incident: dog excrement found on the roof and windows of the Romney station wagon. How it got there: Romney strapped a dog carrier — with the family dog Seamus, an Irish Setter, in it — to the roof of the family station wagon for a twelve hour drive from Boston to Ontario, which the family apparently completed, despite Seamus’s rather visceral protest.

Massachusetts’s animal cruelty laws specifically prohibit anyone from carrying an animal “in or upon a vehicle, or otherwise, in an unnecessarily cruel or inhuman manner or in a way and manner which might endanger the animal carried thereon.” An officer for the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals responded to a description of the situation saying “it’s definitely something I’d want to check out.”