Bark Bark Woof Woof

Back during the run-up to the war in Iraq, the Bush administration was coming up with a lot of reasons for the war: WMD's, aluminum tubes, prisoner torture, revenge for a plot against the first President Bush, hatred of Saddam's mustache, and the dubious attempt to link Iraq to 9/11. The one comparison that the generals and the administration avoided, though, was between this war and World War II. Back then we were fighting countries; the Germans, the Italians, and the Japanese were states with armies and leaders and borders and things; the war on terrorism was nothing like that.

Well, guess what.

Defending a conflict that critics liken to Vietnam, President Bush said Tuesday that the war in Iraq was more like World War II.

Speaking to a crowd of sailors and Marines near San Diego, Bush described the Iraq war and World War II as crucial tests of American resolve in the face of evil. He also painted a grim picture of the consequences of failure, warning that Iraq could turn into an oil-rich haven for international terrorists.

[...]

The outlook in Iraq and public attitudes toward the war have changed dramatically since Bush's last visit to the San Diego-area naval facility. He came to the base in May 2003 for a short flight to the USS Abraham Lincoln, an aircraft carrier that was about 30 miles offshore.

Standing on the flight deck beneath a banner that declared "Mission Accomplished," the president proclaimed the end of major combat in Iraq. More than two years later, American troops are struggling against a deadly insurgency.

Bush didn't mention his previous visit as he praised sailors and Marines for their service Tuesday. He said they were carrying on the legacy of the World War II generation.

"Now, as then, our enemies have made their fight a test of American credibility and resolve. Now, as then, they are trying to intimidate free people and break our will. And now, as then, they will fail," he said. "We will never let the new enemies of a new century destroy with cowardice what these Americans built with courage."

He also used the World War II experience to explain his optimism about Iraq's political future.

The comparison with World War II would be valid if, in response to the attack on Pearl Harbor by Japan, the United States had invaded Italy.

I agree with my friend Bob: the president has really jumped the shark on this one. It's an insult to the veterans of World War II to compare this CF to that conflict. In the first place, the president at the time, Franklin D. Roosevelt, asked us all to sacrifice something for the war effort -- gas rationing, higher taxes, and the draft. The war effort meant the soldiers lacked for nothing in their material; we went to war with the army we wanted, not the army we had.

The World War II comparison would have worked, ironically, if we had not invaded Iraq. The Taliban regime in Afghanistan and their harboring of Osama bin Laden was just as odious and anti-democratic as any 1930's Fascist or Nazi regime, and after the attacks on 9/11 we had the world with us. The invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the months that followed was a worthwhile effort and the government that we helped put in place was on the road to democracy. But we trashed it all with the war in Iraq. All the good will of the other nations, including many Islamic ones, was wiped away. All our honest justifications for a global war on terror and stopping the spread of it were shitcanned, and done so with what now proves to be a series of deliberate deceits. We have ignored Afghanistan, which is now reverting to its previous state of government by warlords and druglords.

The legacy of World War II was that nations that forced their will on others must not be allowed to flourish. It's a lesson we taught well. But did we learn it?

That would be one way to describe President Bush's poll numbers.

Rising gas prices and ongoing bloodshed in Iraq continue to take their toll on President Bush, whose standing with the public has sunk to an all-time low, according to the latest Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The survey found Bush's job approval rating at 45 percent, down seven points since January and the lowest ever recorded for the president in Post-ABC surveys. Fifty-three percent disapproved of the job Bush is doing.

[...]

Dissatisfaction is not limited to the president. Fewer than four in 10 Americans -- 37 percent -- approve of the way the Republican-controlled Congress is doing its job, the lowest rating for lawmakers in nearly eight years.

It also looks like Cindy Sheehan has made a big impression on the country.

The survey also found that Sheehan, who has been protesting the war outside Bush's ranch near Crawford, Tex., has become the most visible symbol of the antiwar movement. Fully three in four Americans have heard or read about her.

Sheehan met last year with Bush at an event for military families and has been seeking another meeting with him. Slightly more than half of the country -- 52 percent -- said Bush should meet her again; 46 percent said he should not. Fifty-three percent supported what she is doing and 42 percent opposed.

Lest the Democrats get complacent, though, there's not good news for them, either:

The survey also provided bad news for Democratic leaders, who are judged as offering Bush only tepid opposition. Slightly more than half of those surveyed expressed dissatisfaction with congressional Democrats for not opposing Bush more aggressively.

Self-identified Democrats were particularly impatient. More than three in four said congressional Democrats have not gone far enough to oppose Bush on Iraq or on administration policies in general.

"Somebody needs to speak up," said Michelle Burgess, 41, a home health aide in St. Louis. "Enough is enough. I don't understand why we're over there in Iraq or what he's doing on other issues. There are too many lives being lost."

The message is pretty clear, then: most of the country is dissatisfied with the president and Congress, they think he's taken the wrong course in Iraq, he's wrong not to have met with Cindy Sheehan, and there are a whole lot of other issues, like gas prices, health care, and education just to name a few that he's done nothing about.

Perhaps the Democrats' plan was to let the Republicans have their way and show the country just how good a thing one-party rule is. The GOP has proven quite handily that they can't "fix" Social Security, they can't properly fund even something as critical as Homeland Security, and are completely on the wrong side when it comes to environmental stewardship, stem-cell research, and even something as settled as the teaching of evolution. At the state level, corruption has overtaken three Republican administrations -- Connecticut, Ohio, and Kentucky -- and the wingnuts are taking over the podium with such spokespeople as James Dobson, Gary Bauer, and Pat Robertson speaking out on such issues as family values and international assassination.

Now would be a good time for Democrats to step up and begin to offer their own version of events. It should be done not in response to what the Bush administration has done -- or hasn't done -- but on their own terms. The time has passed for them to sit back and wait, and the electorate is obviously waiting for them to do something...anything. It may be late summer, but now is not the time for the cricket chorus from our side.

From the Washington Post:

The Bush administration has drafted regulations that would ease pollution controls on older, dirtier power plants and could allow those that modernize to emit more pollution, rather than less.

The language could undercut dozens of pending state and federal lawsuits aimed at forcing coal-fired plants to cut back emissions of harmful pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide, said lawyers who worked on the cases.

The draft rules, obtained by The Washington Post from the Natural Resources Defense Council, an advocacy group, contradict the position taken by federal lawyers who have prosecuted polluting facilities in the past, and parallel the industry's line of defense against those suits. The utilities, and the proposed new rules, take the position that decisions on whether a plant complies with the regulations after modernization should be based on how much pollution it could potentially emit per hour, rather than the current standard of how much it pollutes annually.

Under the new standard, a modernized plant's total emissions could rise if the upgrade allowed it to operate longer hours. In court filings, the EPA estimated in 2002 that an hourly standard would allow eight plants in five states -- including Maryland, Virginia and West Virginia -- to generate legally as much as 100,000 tons a year of pollutants that would be illegal under the existing New Source Review rule. That equals about a third of their total emissions.

[...]

Eric Schaeffer, who headed the EPA's Office of Regulatory Enforcement before resigning in protest in February 2002, said the new rule undermines the original aim of the law, which was to slowly bring older plants into compliance with stricter air laws.

"Under this proposal, it would never happen," Schaeffer said.

It reminds me of that Tom Lehrer song Pollution from 1965:

Just go out for a breath of air
And you'll be ready for Medicare
The city streets are really quite a thrill;
If the hoods don't get you, the monoxide will!

As the enormity of the destruction of Hurricane Katrina sinks in, I realize that snarky comments like my previous post may be inopportune...that is, of course, until someone tries to take advantage of the situation for personal or political gain. Then all bets are off. But for now, the people in Lousiana, Mississippi, and Alabama don't give a rat's ass about politics... I hope.

Again, here is the list of some relief agencies that are helping out, courtesy of Interstate4Jamming. If you know of any more agencies that are helping that aren't on the list, drop me a note and a link in the comments so others can see them and do what they can to help if they can.

Update: a loyal reader suggested we not forget the four-legged; here's an organization called Noah's Wish that helps with animal rescue. Here is the link to the Louisiana SPCA, even though it's based in New Orleans and may not be able to respond. Their site is still operational, though.

In spite of the devastation, there will be those who will take advantage of this and set up phony charities -- human nature, after all, has its light and its dark side. If you receive an unsolicited appeal either by phone or by e-mail from anyone saying they're collecting funds to help the hurricane victims, be extremely cautious. Most reputable disaster relief groups do not cold-call solicit for donations, and any shark with a phone and a boiler room can set up shop and tell you they're calling from "the Red Cross." If you have any doubts, ask the caller to mail you the request with a complete packet of information explaining how the charity operates and a recent financial statement. If you get any static or they say they need the money now, terminate the conversation and contact the charity of your choice on your own.

One thing a disaster like this does is underline how united we can be as a country. It also points out rather well how useful it can be to have a strong federal government every now and then. This is one of the things we pay federal taxes for. There's no way that Florida, Lousiana, Mississippi, and Alabama can begin to pay for the clean-up and the restoration by themselves, and all the charities and insurance companies in the world can't put the infrastructure back together -- the highways, the utilities, or the cities. Hurricane Katrina may have been the worst storm in a hundred years, but there's three more months of hurricane season left, and this time last year we still hadn't had Frances, Ivan, or Jeanne. So the next time you hear someone complain about how high their taxes are, remind them gently that the one of the definitions of "united" -- as in United States -- means sharing the load and helping out those who can't help themselves.

From CNN NEWS ALERT:

President Bush returning to Washington two days ahead of schedule to help oversee Hurricane Katrina recovery efforts, White House announces. Details soon.

Yeah, I guess it would be a little gauche to try to "oversee" recovery efforts from the "ranch" while on vacation.

Isn't it amazing how Cindy Sheehan and the liberals managed to arrange for the worst natural disaster in modern memory to provoke the president to do something besides cut brush and address groups of pre-selected fawning sycophants? Our powers are amazing.

*A take-off on my perception of the right wing's diversionary tactic. Corner them on something and they quickly change the subject: "Oh, look at the kitty!"

Can't Live Without You will be performed in a staged reading on Sunday, November 20, 2005, at 8:00 p.m. in the Studio Theatre (Room 204) of Hecht Residential College Commons (where the Department of Theatre offices are located), 1231 Dickinson Drive, on the campus of the University of Miami in Coral Gables, Florida. (See map.)

Hope you can make it.

Michael Scherer has a piece in Salon.com (subscription/Day pass required) about the latest attempt to control the content of television.

Under the current rules, material is indecent if it is "offensive as measured by contemporary community standards." But standards vary widely from community to community, household to household. Family Research Council legal director Patrick A. Trueman said he recently traveled to a Marriott Hotel in Houston, where he said three separate cable stations -- not pay-per-view stations -- were showing "hardcore pornography," which he described as "sex acts." He demanded that the hotel staff come disable the channels. The staff told him one of the stations was Showtime. "I don't have cable just for this reason," said Trueman, who previously worked on obscenity cases in the Justice Department. "If I had cable, I would not want my children viewing that."

If the activists have their way, Trueman's children will not be the only Americans barred from watching sex -- explicit or implied -- on television. For now, they have the political winds at their backs, and a sympathetic captain at the helm of the FCC. Before taking his current job, [FCC Chairman Kevin] Martin served as a lawyer for the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and later as a White House aide. His wife, Catherine J. Martin, worked for Vice President Cheney until recently, when she took another job in the White House to work for the president on policy and planning issues.

There is little doubt that Martin knows the political stakes of the coming fight. In 2003, he shared his concerns over indecency in a letter to the Parents Television Council, a group that has called for a boycott of shows like the WB's "Everwood" because it features adults who encourage teenage characters to use birth control and, in one case, have an abortion. "Certainly broadcasters and cable operators have significant First Amendment rights, but these rights are not without boundaries," Martin wrote to the group. "They are limited by law. They also should be limited by good taste."

Okay, so now these paragons of virtue, not to mention the advocates of more freedom and less government, want to tell you what you can watch on cable?

I have several problems with this. First, cable TV is not like over-the-air TV. You have to subscribe to it, and you pay extra for the channels with the naughty bits. Second, most if not all cable companies provide password protection on their systems that can block out unwanted channels (for example, I have all the Jesus-shouter channels like EWTN and Trinity blocked on mine -- talk about cable porn); it's not the fault of the cable companies that in most cases the only people in the house who have the talent to program the cable box are the kids. Third, all TV sets built since the early 1990's have the V-chip installed so that even if you don't have cable TV, you can block out programs with ratings over whatever level you choose; again, it's the parents' responsibility to set the level, not the broadcaster or the government. Fourth, the most potent weapon against unwanted channels is something that has been available since the first TV set was introduced: it's called the OFF switch.

I also find it a little more than ironic that the party that preaches personal responsibility and strict interpretation of the Constitution wants to both delegate the role of parental control to the FCC and skate around the First Amendment in the process. Parents who have delegated a portion of their child-rearing to a household appliance have a far bigger problem than what's on cable, and television is no more responsible for the alleged breakdown in family values than Frigidaire is for childhood obesity. As for the freedom of speech issue, if these advocates of decency applied the same strict-constructionist views that they have about the Second Amendment to the First, there would be no laws regulating child pornography or any other restriction on speech or publication for fear of what the government might do next -- "I'll give up my thesaurus when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!"

The right wing has always sought to raise our standards. Why not? They're especially good at doubling them.

What's with the Republicans in the Midwest? Ohio's governor Bob Taft pleads no contest to ethics charges, and now his good neighbor to the south, Gov. Ernie Fletcher of Kentucky, caught up in a patronage scandal, has pardoned everybody -- except himself -- involved in the whole thing.

Calling the investigation into personnel practices in his administration a wasteful game of political gotcha, Gov. Ernie Fletcher tonight pardoned nine current and former officials who have been indicted along with anyone who “might … be charged.”

Although he has the authority to do so, Fletcher said he will not pardon himself. Consequently, Attorney General Greg Stumbo’s office could prosecute Fletcher if the special grand jury investigating his administration’s actions were to indict him.

Scheduled to appear tomorrow before the grand jury, Fletcher said he would not answer questions.

The grand jury, Fletcher said, is a “political tool of Greg Stumbo.”

The grand jury found some administration officials violated the state’s personnel law that bars them from hiring or firing merit employees solely for political reasons. The pardons mean those cases won't go to trial.

The governor tonight acknowledged that some senior executives in his administration made mistakes, particularly in the oversight of some overeager junior workers.

“Mistakes were made but at no time was there a cynical scheme” to displace thousands of productive employees, Fletcher said.

The nine indicted were charged with misdemeanors that Fletcher portrayed as insignificant. Only one official, former transportation administrative service commissioner Dan Druen, has been indicted on more serious felony charges – two counts of witness tampering and 20 counts of evidence tampering.

“Greg Stumbo is wasting your tax dollars,” Fletcher said.

”I cannot allow state government to be consumed by this game of political gotcha,” he added.

Well, gee, that's mighty thoughtful of the governor: saving the hard-working taxpayers of the Bluegrass State all that money that would be wasted on looking into such trivial things such as criminal activity in his administration.

Ah, yes, the Republicans; the party who promised moral leadership and personal responsibility...as long as they don't get caught.

(Hat tip to TPM.)

Hurricane Katrina did a number on South Florida as you well know. But it's nothing compared to what's going to happen when it hits New Orleans. If you can, think about making a donation to the charity of your choice. Robert at Interstate4Jamming has a list of organizations and links to them where you can go and make a donation.

Here's a link to the New Orleans Times-Picayune which is keeping up with the storm and the story.

I'm going to keep this post on top for the rest of the day and update as necessary.

Update - 7:37 p.m. It looks like New Orleans missed the worst of it, but still -- it wasn't a late summer zephyr that passed through the French Quarter, Bourbon Street, and the Elysian Fields. And of course this will effect gas prices and anything else that comes through one of the largest shipping ports in the country. Brace yourself.

The beastofsound is back after a hiatus that was bordering on hibernation. Welcome him with adulation.

Some non-weather-related headlines that caught my eye:

From the Toledo Blade:

Taft claims he can still govern, but not all agree

With his criminal conviction behind him, Gov. Bob Taft has pledged to buckle down and conduct the business of the state for his final 16 months in office.

But lingering concerns about what he knew about Ohio's failed $50 million rare-coin investment with Tom Noe and continuing revelations in the state investment scandal have put Mr. Taft's ability to effectively govern in peril, according to some Democrats and Republicans.

As a result, members of the state legislature from both political parties and grassroots organizations from the left and the right have called on the governor to step aside to allow the state to recover from the embarrassment that is swirling through his administration and state government.

He's only got a year to go, and the longer he's in office, the more the Democrats can beat the crap out of the Republicans with him.

From Reuters:

Venezuela to seek legal action against Robertson

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday his government would take legal action against Pat Robertson and potentially seek his extradition after the U.S. evangelist called for Washington to assassinate the South American leader.

Robertson, who later apologized for the remark, said he was expressing his frustration with Chavez's constant accusations against the administration of President George W. Bush.

"I announce that my government is going to take legal action in the United States ... to call for the assassination of a head of state is an act of terrorism." Chavez said in a televised speech.

The fiery left-wing critic of Bush's foreign policy who frequently charges the U.S. government is plotting to kill him, called Robertson "crazy" and a "public menace."

He said Venezuela could seek Robertson's extradition under international treaties and take its claim to the United Nations if the Bush administration did not act.

Shall we start a collection to buy Pat a plane ticket to Caracas?

From the New York Times:

For Bush, Smaller Goals in Iraq

As Iraq's draft constitution was presented to its National Assembly and honored at a brief ceremony largely boycotted by Sunnis, President Bush joined with others in his administration on Sunday in praising the charter as a milestone in the transition to democracy and the battle against insurgents.

But in the disarray in Baghdad that was becoming evident, with Sunnis and some Shiites vowing to defeat the constitution and others angrily predicting a surge in anti-government violence, statements by the president and others in his administration had the air of making a case that the situation was not as bad as it looked.

Several administration officials acknowledged deep regret and frustration that all their efforts had failed to produce a document that could not only establish human rights but also bring a huge disaffected element into the political process, as the Americans had hoped and predicted.

"We're disappointed that we don't have a document that has a complete consensus," said a weary senior State Department official, speaking anonymously because he did not want to be seen as criticizing the Iraqis publicly. "We think it's a good document in terms of basic rights and philosophy. How to proceed now is an issue for Iraqis to decide."

Lowering their sights, administration officials said Sunday that their task now was to keep the political process alive, even if the constitution was rejected in October, and thereby keep the disaffected Sunnis from helping to stoke more violence.

"It's a legitimate position for some Iraqis to decide that they don't like this document," the State Department official said. "That is still within the democratic process. I don't buy the idea that thousands of people will flock to the colors of the insurgency because their just demands in a constitution were turned down."

We invaded a sovereign nation, killed a whole lot of people, lost over 1,800 of our own soldiers, and end up with the Middle East version of post-Tito Yugoslavia? No wonder the president won't talk to Cindy Sheehan.

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 12:11 PM  

Miami-Dade County Public Schools are still closed due to power outages, but administrative staff has been asked to report to work, so I'm back at the office.

South Florida is slowly coming back to life. My route in, Coral Way, which had been blocked by fallen trees on Friday, was cleared, and most of the stop lights were functioning. The gas stations were open and the prices were same as last week.

Driving back from some friends last night with the top down, the sound of chainsaws and generators were everywhere, like cicadas in the Midwest in the summertime. The smell of cut wood -- which reminds me of peat mulch -- is also omnipresent. The streets are lined with stacks of fallen trees and branches waiting for pick-up; the city of Coral Gables sent out a phone message informing residents on trash pick-up and estimates on power restoration. I also got a very helpful call from FPL; they said I'd have power "within 48 hours." That was 18 hours after I got it back. Glad to see they're on top of it.

We've got The Weather Channel on here at the office, and Katrina has just made landfall to the east of New Orleans. It looks like it won't hit directly on New Orleans, but that doesn't mean anything, as we learned much to our peril last week when it took a sharp turn south and headed for south Miami-Dade. Even if the eye doesn't pass over the city, they'll still get slammed hard by the storm surge.

Compared to them, we got off easy here.

From AP:

Cindy Sheehan hasn't achieved a meeting with the president during her three-week war protest, but she met a man who plays one on TV. Martin Sheen, who portrays the president on NBC's "The West Wing," visited Sheehan's makeshift campsite Sunday.

"At least you've got the acting president of the United States," Sheen said as the crowd of more than 300 people cheered. "I think you know what I do for a living, but this is what I do to stay alive."

I'm pretty sure Jed Bartlet would have met with Cindy Sheehan again. (Of course, though, he has better writers...)

Jesse Jackson goes to Caracas.

The Rev. Jesse Jackson offered support for President Hugo Chavez on Sunday, saying a call for his assassination by a U.S. religious broadcaster was a criminal act and that Washington and Venezuela should work out their differences through diplomacy.

The U.S. civil rights leader condemned last week's suggestion by Pat Robertson that American agents should kill the leftist Venezuelan leader, calling the conservative commentator's statements "immoral" and "illegal."

Sigh. Never let it be said that The Rev was camera-shy, and he's made headlines in the past by doing these high-profile trips and making some pretty grandiose statements, too. And there are some liberals, including myself, who just wish that sometimes he would just let sleeping dogs -- or right-wing nut jobs -- alone. But Mr. Jackson, like Mr. Robertson, just can't resist that seductive summons of the limelight and Larry King.

The difference, however, between the two is that Mr. Jackson has never publicly called for someone to be whacked.

The message of the counter-demonstrators against Cindy Sheehan is "Cindy, Go Home!"

It would appear that they have a problem, then, not with Ms. Sheehan's question for the president -- why did my son have to die in Iraq -- but the fact that she is asking it.

They don't have an answer to her question, either.

To my dad and his twin.

Sailing.
Digging.
Hunting.
Shard-picking.
Swallows and Amazons.
Animal jokes.
Lake Harriet.
The cuckoo clock.
Red or green?
red/green.
Boston.
The Cape.
Minneapolis.
Bandelier.
Lake Charlevoix.
"Find the bottom."
Postscript.
The Navy.
Princeton.
Yale.
Michigan.
Harvard.
O-I.
Four kids.
Two sons.
My life.

Just as we're recovering here in South Florida, New Orleans looks like it is right in the target sight for the next landfall of Hurricane Katrina, and this time she's a Category 3 to 4. This storm was bad enough here as just a Cat 1; I can't imagine what it will do to a place like New Orleans which is below sea level.

I hope that anyone I know there is out of there and on their way to safety.

The power is back. It came back almost exactly 48 hours after it went out -- the clock in the stove picked up right where it was when it went out. The A/C is purring away. The cable is out, but it has been duly reported to Comcast. I can live without it; I have a little portable if I desperately need to see something on TV.

Good night.

This post is coming from the home of my friend Bob and The Old Professor. I am here in air-conditioned comfort and with a source of electrical power. I finally left the house as the good men of Asplundh, contractors for Florida Power and Light, were reconnecting the main lines in the alley behind the house. They assured me that I would have power tonight, and I couldn't resist the offer of a home-cooked meal.

As I drove the ten miles from my house to here, I saw a lot of trees down, branches everywhere, and a lot of stoplights still out. Forty-eight hours after the worst of Katrina, there is still a lot to clean up, and I will have to hire someone to come and take out the tipped-over tree in my yard.

I got off easy. Losing power for 48 hours is nothing compared to people who lost roofs or were flooded out. Compared to Hurricane Andrew, where people were without power for six weeks and crews like the guys at Asplundh worked for over a year, what I went through is nothing. Tomorrow I will go shopping to replace the frozen food that I lost, I'll do my laundry, I'll tidy up the yard, and I'll send thoughts and good wishes and anything I can spare to help the less fortunate, and I'll be worrying about those who still have yet to deal with the restrengthened Hurricane Katrina.

Tomorrow I hope to be back to my usual blogger self, and Monday I'll be back at the office.

So, what's been going on out there? Did I miss anything?

The good news is that I finished Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix last night before it got dark.

Neither rain nor snow nor hurricane will keep me from my Friday night routine of having dinner out, so last night around six I strolled up to Miracle Mile to see what was open. Burger King was closed, as was the Denny's on the corner of Douglas and Miracle Mile. But the fancy-schmancy Tarpon Bay or whatever the hell the name is of the $5-for-a-nosh place with the hunky valet boys was open. Pass. So was Houston's, another trendy $10-a-drink joint on the corner of Miracle Mile and Ponce de Leon. Again, pass. So I went on back down to a little pizza and sub shop called Pomodoro's on Galiano and had two slices of pepperoni and a Diet Coke. No attitude, they were open, and they had A/C. Sold.

By the time it got dark I was ready to sleep anyway. During the afternoon I explored the back yard and, with the help of a woman who was picking her way through the alley collecting storm-tossed avocados (those little suckers are heavy - they could take out a window), I removed several of the largest limbs from my across-the-alley neighbors avocado tree. My neighbors to the east lost their huge mango tree, falling neatly between the back of their house, their picnic table, and their fence -- but taking their power line with it. One of the branches came down in my yard, also taking a power line, but it wasn't the main line -- the other tree took care of that -- and it wasn't the phone line. That took about an hour, and I was completely schvitzed by the time I got done. I've been taking a lot of cold showers, but never for the right reason; more's the pity.

All the people I've talked to have been taking this in stride, and from what I'm hearing on the radio, so are most of the people who were really afffected by the flooding and the high winds. There's no one to blame, it's part of life here, and they're grateful for any help that they get from anyone. They're also mindful of the needs of others, too.

According to the Miami Herald, Miami-Dade County Schools plan to open again on Monday, which means I report to the office. I also may trek to some friends' house where they have power and do some things like laundry and recharge the battery in this laptop -- I'm down to 52% power reserve now, and I don't want to waste it.

I had a screeching headache most of yesterday, and figured out that it was caffeine withdrawal. That will be easily cured today -- warm Diet Pepsi for breakfast. Just like after an all-nighter in college.

As soon as there's good daylight, though, I start on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. After that it's One Fine Day in the Middle of the Night by Christopher Brookmyre.

Thanks again for the notes.

In the daylight, it's worse. I lost a tree in the back yard; it tipped over and is hanging on the powerlines. It was not, apparently though, the cause of the outage -- the tree was still vertical when the lights went out last night.

The radio has been saying that Florida Power and Light has 1.4 million customers without power, but I phoned in my outage anyway just to make sure. My landlord says that FPL will clear the tree away in order to restore the power. That's good; I left my chainsaw in my other pants. There are limbs down everywhere you look, and streets in Coral Gables are basically impassible with ficus trees lying like dead giants across the roadways. Bob, who lives ten miles south of me, has power but no cable or internet service; ironically, his second phone line works, but he can't connect his computer to it. Cellphone service is spotty but the landline service is obviously working -- I have two phone lines and I'm not shouting this out the window.

South of here is another story. Katrina took a sudden veer south once it made landfall and headed for southeast Miami-Dade County, the most flood-prone part, and there are places with two feet of standing water. These are also the same places that were devastated by Hurricane Andrew thirteen years ago.

So, I'm settled in with a good book, some canned food, a flashlight, and waning battery power on the computer. Thanks for all the nice notes on the previous entry, and I'll check back tomorrow. There's no word on when I'll get power back, but I'm not in any frantic need for it. As long as the water keeps running and I have something to read, I'll be all right, and the first priority is the people who really need it.

Oh, the Mustang came through without a scratch.

Just seconds after I wrote the last post last night the power went out; that loud explosion must have been a transformer or something, and my block is dark. Across the street they have power. I went to sleep right after that -- what else is there to do? -- and woke up on my usual nutsy schedule of 4:30 a.m. The radio, my 1977 Panasonic AM/FM with the built-in 8-track player, is tuned to an AM station that is feeding the sound from WFOR Channel 4 CBS, so I'm hearing that it is now Tropical Storm Katrina again and heading for the Gulf of Mexico. Apparently the storm took a sudden turn to the south and so here in parts of Miami -- Kendall, Homestead, and parts of Coral Gables -- got the worst rain and wind out of it. The radio is saying that over a million homes are without power. There are downed power lines and tree limbs, debris in the road, but apparently nothing along the lines of catastropic, although there are four people dead, either from being hit by falling trees or electrocution. A quick flashlight survey reveals no damage to my house or the car. The good news is that the palm fronds I've been meaning to pull off the tree in front are now neatly piled on the curb via Nature's hand.

Right now it is calm... and dark. Since I'm running this on battery power, this will be it for blogging until we get power back. So you'll have to just cope without the Friday Blogaround and my usual witty badinage until it comes back.

See you later.

Coral Gables is getting some pretty hefty rain bands and wind squalls right now, and there's been some power flickers, so this will be it for the night. Here's the 8:00 p.m. radar picture;

See that curving band of orange and red at the bottom of the tight green swirl over Miami? Well, that's where I am. I've heard some things going bump in the night, but a quick survey shows that everything is intact -- except for the loud explosion I just heard outside. Ejole! The lights are still on, so if it was a transformer, it didn't effect my grid. But I'm not taking any chances, so good night everyone, and I'll see you in the morning,assuming there's still power to boot up with.

Sen. John McCain is making all the right noises to run in 2008.

McCain, who turns 69 on Monday, said "there's no point" in formally announcing his candidacy until after the 2006 congressional elections.

But the Arizona Republican didn't skip a beat Tuesday when asked why he would want to run for the White House in 2008.

"Because we live in a time of great challenges," McCain said in an interview with Arizona Daily Star editors and reporters.

Chief among them is the war on terror, a "transcendent issue" likely to last for years, he said. But there is "a broad variety of domestic challenges" as well.

Sounding much like a candidate ticking off the priorities of his platform, McCain said they include immigration, Social Security, global warming, rising health-care costs and the "obscene" spending practices of Washington.

"My ego is sufficient to say that I think I have the background and experience to take on these challenges," he said.

Asked about possible opposition to his candidacy from conservatives, McCain cited polls that show he and ex-New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani are "the two most popular" members of the Republican Party.

[...]

As the Gallup Poll noted, McCain has a generally consistent conservative voting record but forged a national reputation after a series of notable breaks with fellow Republicans.

On Tuesday, though, he sided with the president on two issues that have made headlines recently: teaching intelligent design in schools and Cindy Sheehan, the grieving mother who has come to personify the anti-war movement.

McCain told the Star that, like Bush, he believes "all points of view" should be available to students studying the origins of mankind.

The theory of intelligent design says life is too complex to have developed through evolution, and that a higher power must have had a hand in guiding it.

At a breakfast meeting Tuesday with the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce, McCain said Sheehan is probably being used by organizations opposed to the U.S. mission in Iraq. But, he added, she is "a symptom, not a cause" of growing public discontent with the war.

Oh, yeah, he's running. Not only that, he's cozying up to the Religious Reich. Am I surprised? Not in the least. He's learned well that to win the Republican vote, especially now that they're a wholly owned subsidiary of the Christian Coalition and Focus on the Family, he'd have to dance to their tune, including his embrace of pseudo-science.

The wheels have come off the Straight Talk Express. He's just another camera hog.

(Thanks, Paul.)

I just got word tonight that there will be a staged reading of my play Can't Live Without You here in Miami this fall; stay tuned for further details, including time and place. As soon as I find out, you will too.

So if you're in the Miami area and would like to both meet me in person and hear what I think is one of my better pieces of writing, please come. It will be free, of course, and I'd like to hear what you think of it.

We're getting a pretty strong squall with thunder and lightning blowing through now -- go here for the latest radar update from The Weather Channel. The wind is coming out of the west, but it will switch to the south once the system makes landfall between 7 and 9 p.m. tonight. Up in Fort Lauderdale they're getting winds of 45 m.p.h. with gusts to 65 and almost 4 inches of rain so far at the WTVJ studios up in Miramar, which is just over the Miami-Dade -- Broward County line.

With the wind out of that direction, my house and car is sheltered by the neighbors and no large trees within tipping range (although that won't prevent a loose limb or palm frond from becoming airborne).

Some idiot just raced down my street on a motorcycle without a helmet. In the EMT trade they're known as "organ donors."

Tom Hamburger and Sonni Efron of the Los Angeles Times have put together a well-sourced and researched background story on the entire Valerie Plame Wilson leak story.

Toward the end of a steamy summer week in 2003, reporters were peppering the White House with phone calls and e-mails, looking for someone to defend the administration's claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

About to emerge as a key critic was Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former diplomat who asserted that the administration had manipulated intelligence to justify the Iraq invasion.

At the White House, there wasn't much interest in responding to critics like Wilson that Fourth of July weekend. The communications staff faced more pressing concerns — the president's imminent trip to Africa, growing questions about the war and declining ratings in public opinion polls.

Wilson's accusations were based on an investigation he undertook for the CIA. But he was seen inside the White House as a "showboater" whose stature didn't warrant a high-level administration response. "Let him spout off solo on a holiday weekend," one White House official recalled saying. "Few will listen."

In fact, millions were riveted that Sunday as Wilson — on NBC's "Meet the Press" and in the pages of the New York Times and the Washington Post — accused the administration of ignoring intelligence that didn't support its rationale for war.

Underestimating the impact of Wilson's allegations was one in a series of misjudgments by White House officials.

In the days that followed, they would cast doubt on Wilson's CIA mission to Africa by suggesting to reporters that his wife was responsible for his trip. In the process, her identity as a covert CIA agent was divulged — possibly illegally.

For the last 20 months, a tough-minded special prosecutor, Patrick J. Fitzgerald, has been looking into how the media learned that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA operative.

Top administration officials, along with several influential journalists, have been questioned by prosecutors.

Beyond the whodunit, the affair raises questions about the credibility of the Bush White House, the tactics it employs against political opponents and the justification it used for going to war.

What motivated President Bush's political strategist, Karl Rove; Vice President Cheney's top aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby; and others to counter Wilson so aggressively? How did their roles remain secret until after the president was reelected? Have they fully cooperated with the investigation?

The answers remain elusive. As Fitzgerald's team has moved ahead, few witnesses have been willing to speak publicly. White House officials declined to comment for this article, citing the ongoing inquiry.

But a close examination of events inside the White House two summers ago, and interviews with administration officials, offer new insights into the White House response, the people who shaped it, the deep disdain Cheney and other administration officials felt for the CIA, and the far-reaching consequences of the effort to manage the crisis.

Read the entire article. The Times requires registration, but it's free and it's worth it. It's factual, dispassionate, sourced to a fault, and includes a detailed chronology beginning in February 2002. It's also some of the best shoe-leather reporting I've read since 1974.

Here's the latest from the Sun-Sentinel:

Here's the radar image from The Weather Channel:

It looks a lot worse up north towards Fort Lauderdale and Palm Beach; stores are closing, public transportation is stopping, and the Fort Lauderdale - Hollywood International airport is closing at 8:00 p.m. Miami International is staying open, but check with your airline. The Publix supermarkets are also closing. The Tim McGraw concert at the Hard Rock casino has been postponed to September 19, but the Green Day concert at the Office Depot Center is still on for tomorrow night.

But some things are not going to let a little rain and wind stop them: the MTV Video Music Awards are going on as scheduled at the American Airlines Arena in downtown Miami on Sunday night, and the Miami Dolphins pre-season game is still on. Party on, dude!

From here it reminds me of Charley last year -- grey skies, wind, and rain -- and a lot like those late summer storms we used to get in Michigan about this time of year when we'd stay inside all day, light a fire in the fireplace, play bridge with my grandmother, and drink whiskey sours. Party on, two hearts!

Update - 3:46 p.m.: With winds now reaching 74 m.p.h., Katrina is now officially a hurricane.

Looking a little better; here's the 11 a.m. update.

The forecast has Katrina as a tropical storm when it makes landfall and north of here. That puts Coral Gables on the south side of the circulation, which is good. What I don't like is that once it clears the west coast of Florida, they're saying it will become a Category 1 hurricane and head for Pensacola. Hang on up there.

The latest news from the worksite: Miami-Dade County Public Schools and offices will also be closed tomorrow as well. I guess those transmittals and budget transfers will just have to wait.

It was drizzling when I went to put the trash and recycling out; the City of Miami has suspended trash collection, but the City of Coral Gables was running as normal (as the guy said when he picked up my recycling, "we're like the post office...")

Here's the 8 a.m. update from the Sun-Sentinel.

Here are some links for live TV coverage if you have broadband and want to see what I'm getting as far as local coverage:

WTVJ Channel 6 (NBC)

WFOR Channel 4 (CBS) offers live streaming and no commercials.

No word yet on work tomorrow, but if the landfall hits late tonight or early Friday morning, I am guessing that I'll be hearing on that pretty soon.

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 9:42 AM  

All our little friends on the right say that no matter what he does, the people of America really do like President Bush. They like his folksy style, his "aw-shucks" demeanor, and they even find his mangling of the language to be endearing. So in spite of all the snarky comments by the nasty MSM, lefty bloggers, and the smart-ass quips by late-night comics, the country is really behind him. Right?

You are wrong, turkeylips! According to the American Reasearch Group,

George W. Bush's overall job approval ratings have dropped from a month ago even as Americans who approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president are turning more optimistic about their personal financial situations according to the latest survey from the American Research Group. Among all Americans, 36% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 58% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 33% approve and 62% disapprove.

Thirty-six percent? Wow. That's as bad as Richard Nixon, right?

Wrong again, buffalo breath! Richard Nixon, in July 1973, at the same point in his presidency as Bush (the summer after his re-election) and at the height of the Watergate revelations (John Dean's testimony before the Ervin committee and the revelation of the White House tapes), was at 39%. In other words, Richard Nixon, one of the more charm-free occupants of the Oval Office, was three points ahead of President Bush.

Okay, well, what about the most evil, tawdry, tacky, villified, decadent, sleazy, slimy, slick, and just downright despised presidents to darken the door of the West Wing since Warren G. Harding, Bill Clinton. Certainly President Bush is more popular than that scumbag ever was, right?

Wrong once again, gatorface! On the day he was impeached by Congress, December 19, 1998, Bill Clinton's approval rating was at 72%.

In other words, at the darkest moment of his presidency, when an entire branch of the government indicted him for "high crimes and misdemeanors," when you would think that nothing could be worse and that the aforementioned Richard Nixon resigned his office rather than face such a trauma, Bill Clinton's approval rating was twice as high as George W. Bush's is right now.

Now our little friends over on the right will say, "Well, sure, the liberal media is beating the crap out of Bush and never laid a glove on Clinton." Oh, right. I forgot. They didn't touch Bill Clinton. Not a word. Nothing. They ignored the Starr report and didn't print anything at all about Whitewater, Paula Jones, Vince Foster, Travelgate, Filegate, or Monica Lewinsky, and the $70 million we spent on a special prosecutor actually went to buy everyone in Toledo a pizza. Fox News was mysteriously off the air throughout Clinton's entire second term and Rush Limbaugh was in the Peace Corps in Angola, working as a medic -- that's how he hurt his back.

I honestly believe that if the Republican noise machine had been working at Ford in 1957, the Edsel would have been the most popular car in America. But the reality is that George W. Bush's approval ratings suck out loud, and that 62% disapproval rating, by sheer numbers, has to include a lot of Republicans. Are they worried? If it were me, I would be. But then again, I hate don't care for Kool-Aid.

Isn't the Iraqi constitution cool? It splits up the country into sections run by ethnic groups that hate each other and there's very little central power! Gee, it's just like Bosnia!

The American Legion is out to save America's freedoms by stomping the shit out of them.

The American Legion, which has 2.7 million members, has declared war on antiwar protestors, and the media could be next. Speaking at its national convention in Honolulu, the group's national commander called for an end to all “public protests” and “media events” against the war, even though they are protected by the Bill of Rights.

"The American Legion will stand against anyone and any group that would demoralize our troops, or worse, endanger their lives by encouraging terrorists to continue their cowardly attacks against freedom-loving peoples," Thomas Cadmus, national commander, told delegates at the group's national convention in Honolulu.

The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to "ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism."In his speech, Cadmus declared: "It would be tragic if the freedoms our veterans fought so valiantly to protect would be used against their successors today as they battle terrorists bent on our destruction.”

He explained, "No one respects the right to protest more than one who has fought for it, but we hope that Americans will present their views in correspondence to their elected officials rather than by public media events guaranteed to be picked up and used as tools of encouragement by our enemies."

"Whatever means necessary?" What the hell is that supposed to mean? Greet demonstrations with water hoses? M-16's? And doing it all dressed in nice clean pressed brown shirts? With this kind of Nuremberg-rally mindset, the American Legion believes that Cindy Sheehan is a bigger threat to our country than Osama bin Laden. What kind of "freedom on the march" is that?

This certainly has been the week for the righties to show off their nuts.

Here is the 5 a.m. storm track.

We are now under a Hurricane Warning, which means we can expect hurricane conditions -- high winds and rain -- within the next 24 hours. The warning covers the coastline from Vero Beach to the north to Florida City, at the entrance to the Keys, to the south. And Coral Gables is right in the middle of that zone. Notice the track is heading north of Miami, but also notice that when it gets on land the tracking dot changes to yellow, which means a Category 1 hurricane.

Fortunately my house is not in a low-lying area and both the Pontiac and Mustang have full tanks of gas. My lawn furniture is heavy (teakwood) and in a protected area, and the trash cans are in the garage. Right now the weather is calm.

Tropical Storm Katrina is on track to tromp over South Florida.

Schools in Broward County (Ft. Lauderdale) will be closed Thursday and Friday, and word is now out that Miami-Dade Schools will be closed Thursday, with word on whether or not they'll be open on Friday to come later. No word yet on whether or not this applies to administrative staff.

I have my stock of water, non-perishable food, a good flashlight, and a good book.

Coincidentally, today is the thirteenth anniversary of Hurricane Andrew.

Update -- 8:10 p.m.:

"All Miami-Dade County public schools, adult education centers and offices will be closed on Thursday, August 25, due to the anticipated effects of Tropical Storm Katrina. All extracurricular activities and athletic events have been canceled.

Only Miami-Dade County Public Schools employees designated as 'essential' should report to work on Thursday, August 25. Essential personnel include staff involved in emergency management, storm damage assessment, security and repair of facilities related to weather, and payroll processing. Employees should confer with their supervisors if they have a question about their designation as essential."

I'm not considered "essential," so I know what I'm doing tomorrow...

From CNN:

Conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson apologized Wednesday for calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez during Monday's broadcast of his "700 Club" program.

"Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement," he said in a written statement.

Earlier, Robertson said that his remarks about Chavez were taken out of context and that he never called for the killing of the Latin American leader.

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "The 700 Club."

Well, that's mighty decent of him. I mean, when you're faced with the videotape of doing exactly what you said you didn't do, its big of you to admit that you were wrong and that you're sorry. Very nice, Pat.

Of course, he's still as crazy as a boxful of birds.

Controversial statements are not new to the 75-year-old Robertson.

He has suggested in the past that a meteor could strike Florida because of unofficial "Gay Days" at Disney World and that feminism caused women to kill their children, practice witchcraft and become lesbians.

And, my friends on the right, he's all yours.

You knew this was coming:

Conservative religious broadcaster Pat Robertson said Wednesday that his remarks about the removal of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez were taken out of context and that he never called for the killing of the Latin American leader.

"I didn't say 'assassination.' I said our special forces should 'take him out.' And 'take him out' can be a number of things, including kidnapping; there are a number of ways to take out a dictator from power besides killing him. I was misinterpreted by the AP [Associated Press], but that happens all the time," Robertson said on "The 700 Club" program.

Let's go to the videotape. And if you need it in writing:

"If he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it," said Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition.

He and Rush Limbaugh seem to be suddenly afflicted with short-term memory loss. But that's what we bloggers are here for; anything we can do to help remind them of what they've said. Happy to be of service.

Non-Sequitur

From Salon.com:

What do you say when 1,872 Americans have died in order to depose a dictator only to replace him with what's shaping up to be an Islamic republic where clerics get the final say on the rights of women? If you're George W. Bush, you simply say it isn't so.

The Iraqis still have a long way to go before they've adopted a new constitution. But if the draft that has been presented to the Iraqi National Assembly is adopted and approved by the Iraqi people, what they'll be left with is a lot less than the freedom-filled democracy the president has so often envisioned. The draft provides that Islam is the official religion of Iraq and prohibits the adoption of any laws that conflict with Islam's teachings, and it leaves open the possibility that issues regarding marriage, divorce and inheritance will be decided by clerics rather than judges. Howard Dean predicted the other day that Iraqi women may well end up worse off than they were under Saddam Hussein, and some experts suggest that he may be right.

The president's response? Simply deny that the issue exists. Speaking to reporters traveling with him in Idaho today, Bush said that "the fact that Iraq will have a democratic constitution that honors women's rights, the rights of minorities, is going to be an important change in the broader Middle East." Pressed to explain how a constitution "rooted in Islam" will end up "honoring the rights of women," Bush said he knew it would work out that way because Condoleezza Rice had told him.

"I talked to Condi, and there is not -- as I understand it, the way the constitution is written is that women have got rights, inherent rights recognized in the constitution, and that the constitution talks about not 'the religion,' but 'a religion,'" the president said. "Twenty-five percent of the assembly is going to be women, which is a -- is embedded in the constitution."

You mean to tell me that we blew billions of dollars, killed a lot of people, pissed off an entire culture and continent, and all we have to show for it is a constitution that would make the Iranians proud? Sounds like a rip-off to me, and if the president was so intent on allowing democracy to flourish in Iraq, he'd make damn sure that we got what we paid for.

We've seen the predictable reaction to Pat Robertson's call for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela. The usual talking heads have condemned it, the state department called it inappropriate -- a term you usually associate with using the wrong fork at dinner -- and the Religious Reich, while not exactly backing their man, came out with the helpful reminder that Jesus Christ himself wasn't all peace and love all the time.

As far as I'm concerned, Pat Robertson can say whatever he wants to whomever he wants and about whomever. Freedom of expression is what we're fighting for, right? And the more craziness he comes up with, the better job he does of making the Bush administration uncomfortable -- after all, Robertson is taking credit for getting the president elected -- and he provides us with a wonderful point of comparison to people like Michael Moore. Moore may be a clown, but he's never put out a contract on anyone that I know of, and he doesn't have his own TV show...which, by the way, begs the question as to whether or not The 700 Club may be liable to a fine from the FCC. After all, if CBS can be slapped with $550,000 for inadvertantly revealing Janet Jackson's breast, can ABC Family be fined for allowing someone to advocate murder? Do FCC sanctions apply only to tits but not hits?

Whatever the outcome of this flap, I say let Pat Robertson say whatever the hell he wants. The more he natters on, the more uncomfortable he will make the Republicans; after all, he's not just a scruffy baseball-cap-wearing film maker but the head of one of the largest lobbying groups in Washington and a huge fundraiser for them. And the best thing is that he's not alone. James Dobson, Phyllis Schlafly, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer; these pompous, arrogant, and homophobic bores out there are all owned by the Republicans, and the more they talk, the easier it is for the left to make the case that when it comes to bomb-throwing, we on the left have nothing on them.

No, not the mental state -- we're actually getting tropical storm warnings here in South Florida.

This mess, should it become a storm, will be named Katrina. The five-day track has it heading a little north of Miami, but not much. We could use the rain -- it's been a dry summer since June -- but I still get that queasy feeling when they head this way.

It's been a hot summer, and the stress is beginning to show in some.

As Maureen Dowd points out, the president has to go to Idaho to take a vacation from his vaction.

Rush Limbaugh called Cindy Sheehan a "fake," then denied that he ever said it (despite his own transcripts to the contrary), scrubs his website of the evidence, and jumps all over the people who pointed out his inconsistency.

The right wing goes batshit crazy over Cindy Sheehan for daring to have strong opinions about the war and getting like-minded political groups to support her -- as if the right wing never did anything like that at all.

Pat Robertson wants to take out a contract on the president of Venezuela.

Ann Coulter... well, Ann's been nuts for as long as anyone can tell.

Isn't it a little ironic that the righties have used the "angry left" label so smugly to dismiss our complaints when it's they that sound like they need a time-out? What have we got to be angry about, anyway?

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 5:54 AM  

Quoted in full from Charles2 at The Fulcrum.

You Don't Speak For Me!

The thing I find most galling - in a long, long list - about the chicken-hawks and their supporters in this mis-administration is their predilection to put words in my mouth (and the mouths of other veterans and service members). Those who were just too busy to serve in the armed forces of our country or who served under mysterious circumstances (yeah, I'm talking to you, W), have no moral stand whatsoever to say what actions might "dishonor" service members or veterans. They have no right to declare that one action or another would make our sacrifices be "in vain."

As an ex-soldier and a veteran, I can tell you that nothing dishonors a soldier more than to waste his time or to risk his life or the lives of his buddies for no good reason. Nothing could be more in vain than to give up life or limb in the prosecution of a war sold to the American people as a lie.

Listen up, all of you who support this continuing disaster in Iraq, unless you've served, unless you're a veteran, you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no right to make claims on our honor. Keep your goddamn words out of our mouths; we can speak for ourselves.

You do not speak for me.

President Bush in Salt Lake City:

President George W. Bush, speaking amid protests and growing public unease over Iraq, said on Monday America owed it to the more than 1,800 U.S. soldiers killed there to complete the mission, which he linked with the campaign against terrorism.

[...]

In a speech to a convention of Veterans of Foreign Wars, Bush again linked the Iraq war with efforts to protect the United States from another September 11-style attack -- a link critics say is an attempt to shift the justification for war.

"Iraq is a central front in the war on terror," Bush said. "It is a vital part of our mission."

[...]

Critics accuse Bush of shifting his argument for war when he invokes the issue of terrorism to argue for staying the course in Iraq. They point out that a commission investigating the hijacked plane attacks of September 11, 2001, found no operational ties between those attacks and deposed Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's government.

The White House says the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda-linked insurgents shows the link with terrorism, although the U.S. administration concedes many of those militants have come into Iraq from other countries since the U.S. invasion.

I suppose if you were tanking in the polls -- even the most charitable to the president show him at below 40% approval -- you'd grasp at any justification you can for the disasterous track you've embarked on. But the polls don't just reflect the negative feelings about the war. Americans aren't happy about a lot of other things, including the sharp rise in gas prices, interest rates and housing costs, and other economic indicators. The electorate tends to blame the party in power for their discomfort, and the Republicans can't blame Clinton for everything (they'll try, though). In addition, the Republicans have shown themselves to be just as corrupt (Tom DeLay, Jack Abramhoff, Duke Cunningham, Bob Taft) as they said everyone else was. No wonder Bush is showing up at at Veterans of Foreign Wars (there's an irony for you) convention. But even there he can't catch a break; Rocky Anderson, the mayor Salt Lake City, the biggest city in the reddest state, is against the war.

From the text of the proposed Iraqi constitution:

Article Two

The political system is republican, parliamentary, democratic and federal.

1. Islam is a main source for legislation.

-- a. No law may contradict Islamic standards.

-- b. No law may contradict democratic standards.

-- c. No law may contradict the essential rights and freedoms mentioned in this constitution.

From the text of the constitution of Iran:

Article 4

All civil, penal financial, economic, administrative, cultural, military, political, and other laws and regulations must be based on Islamic criteria. This principle applies absolutely and generally to all articles of the Constitution as well as to all other laws and regulations, and the fuqaha' of the Guardian Council are judges in this matter.

Well, the president did say going in that he wanted the Iraqis to decide for themselves what kind of country they would have. Chances are, though, I don't think he was betting on Iran 2.0.

The bats are busy in Virginia Beach.

Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson called on Monday for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, calling him a "terrific danger" to the United States.

Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition of America and a former presidential candidate, said on "The 700 Club" it was the United States' duty to stop Chavez from making Venezuela a "launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism."

Chavez has emerged as one of the most outspoken critics of President Bush, accusing the United States of conspiring to topple his government and possibly backing plots to assassinate him. U.S. officials have called the accusations ridiculous.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it," Robertson said. "It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ... and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

This must be part of Robertson's job application process for the vacancy at the State Department left by the departure of John Bolton.

Since when is one of the largest Catholic countries in South America a "launching pad" for Muslim extremism? And the last time we had to worry about "communist infilration," it was from a bunch of people who converted a 1959 Buick LeSabre into a raft with tailfins.

If this doesn't prove Pat Robertson is nuts, I'm not sure what will.

The Cincinnati Post has an interesting article.

Democrats have yet to find a candidate to challenge Republican Sen. Mike DeWine next year. But one name that has been coming up a lot lately is Paul Hackett.

The tough talkin' Iraq war veteran who came close to pulling off an upset in southwest Ohio's special congressional election earlier this month has been discussing the Senate race with party leaders and is seriously considering jumping in, a Washington insider says.

So far, the talks have amounted to nothing more than a few phone conversations. But Democrats may try to bring Hackett to D.C. after Congress returns from its August recess to talk about the race some more, the source said.

The list of prospective challengers for DeWine got a little smaller when U.S. Rep. Sherrod Brown of Lorain announced this week that he's not interested. Another possible contender, U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan of Youngstown, told the Youngstown Vindicator that he's leaning against making the race.

With Brown out and Ryan on the fence, Hackett is starting to look like the heir apparent to some Democrats. Given his strong showing in the congressional race and DeWine's perceived vulnerabilities, Democrats are convinced Hackett could unseat Ohio's senior senator.

It's not as if the Ohio Republican Party is in great shape as it is, what with Gov. Bob Taft pleading no contest to ethics violations and the current incumbent Mike DeWine seen as vulnerable by those in the know. So a run by Hackett could have instant appeal and could energize the Democrats who have been on the outs in Ohio for a while.

As Michael Crowley at TPM points out, Hackett's rough edges may turn off some voters; referring to the president as a chickenhawk and a son of a bitch gave some more delicate and moderate voters the vapors. He may have to smooth it over for the state-wide campaign, but unless the Republicans can pull off a personality transplant and make Mike DeWine a True Believer, he's gonna have a hell of a fight on his hands.

Add to that the race in Pennsylvania -- Rick Santorum is in the fight of his life with Robert Casey, Jr. -- and in Michigan where both Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Gov. Jennifer Granholm, both Democrats, are not facing serious challeneges as yet in '06, three big states in the Rustbelt may be swinging back to the Democrats. If that happens, 2008 becomes very interesting.

From the AP:

A leading Republican senator and prospective presidential candidate said Sunday that the war in Iraq has destabilized the Middle East and is looking more like the Vietnam conflict from a generation ago.

Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel, who received two Purple Hearts and other military honors for his service in Vietnam, reiterated his position that the United States needs to develop a strategy to leave Iraq. Hagel scoffed at the idea that U.S. troops could be in Iraq four years from now at levels above 100,000, a contingency for which the Pentagon is preparing.

"We should start figuring out how we get out of there," Hagel said on "This Week" on ABC. "But with this understanding, we cannot leave a vacuum that further destabilizes the Middle East. I think our involvement there has destabilized the Middle East. And the longer we stay there, I think the further destabilization will occur."

Hagel said "stay the course" is not a policy. "By any standard, when you analyze 2 1/2 years in Iraq ... we're not winning," he said.

It's early yet, but I expect by the middle of the morning to see a lot of True Believers and Kool-Aid Kids dishing Hagel to filth with a lot of irrelevancies ("He's running for something," "He's not a nice guy," "He's McCain-Lite," etc.) and railing against the old saw that just because he's a combat veteran he somehow has more credibility than other people on how to run a war; funny, that was the same argument the Republicans and the brass used against Clinton in the 1990's, but then...It's Okay If You're A Republican.

I'm not a huge fan of Chuck Hagel, either, and you won't catch me voting for him in a presidential primary, but you can't deny that he knows his history and has learned something from it. He also seems to be one of the few people in his party who will even get close to admitting that there might be the possibility that we made some mistakes then and now. That's enough to invoke the wrath of the slimers, so just stand back, Chuck.

HBO's Six Feet Under died last night. Here's the obituary from The New York Times. (WARNING: if you haven't seen it, there be spoilers here and there.)

I have seen every episode of the show -- except the first. There were times when I loved it, times when I dreaded it, and especially in the last year with Nate's self-indulgent wailing and David's fragile mentality that I just wanted them all to just die already or get over it. But I never got tired of it; I grew to care about these people as much as any characters in drama (except Brenda -- when she left at the end of one season I said "Hooray! Dump the bitch!")

But the ending was probably the best series finale I've seen in a long while. There was very little of the neat tying up of the storylines; most of them were concluded with a feeling of "well, it's not exactly what I wanted, but it will do," and life -- and death -- will go on. And the final montage, whether it was imagined or real, seemed to be a fitting end for everyone. I also felt comforted that Claire outlived them all. It proves that an artist's life may be full of suffering, but we have long life spans.

So long, and thanks for all the Fishers.

Yes, I know the election of 2000 is over (some people can be so touchy!) But if the righties can put lipstick on that pig, they're going to try it again with Iraq.

The New York Times has a backgrounder on The Discovery Institute, the think tank behind "intelligent design" and now a politically-motivated front group for the Religious Reich.

When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.

After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.

[...]

Like a well-tooled electoral campaign, the Discovery Institute has a carefully crafted, poll-tested message, lively Web logs - and millions of dollars from foundations run by prominent conservatives like Howard and Roberta Ahmanson, Philip F. Anschutz and Richard Mellon Scaife. The institute opened an office in Washington last fall and in January hired the same Beltway public relations firm that promoted the Contract With America in 1994.

The problem with the Discovery Institute, or any organization created (oops, bad pun) to further only one viewpoint, is that they lose any credibility with not just mainstream science but anyone in the general population whose understanding of science and nature has moved beyond the stage of believing in the Tooth Faerie.

Scientific research is and should be dedicated to finding out provable truths, no matter where it will lead. A true scientist will not only try to prove that Darwin was right, but also that he was wrong. The sweeping acceptance of a theory -- be it natural selection or intelligent design -- must be subject to objective validation. So far, no one has been able to come up with any valid scientific proof that intelligent design is anything more than repackaged creationism. Even proponents of intelligent design admit that they can't prove their theory because, according to the Bible, mankind is not allowed to know the true nature of God and therefore we must take it on faith that he had a hand in creating the universe.

In a way, I can understand the motivation and appeal behind intelligent design. Mankind has always strived to find something more fantastic than the merely human reasons for our evolution from cave to McMansion. Books have been written about the ancient astronauts and the lost continents, weaving wonderful stories about visits by superintelligences from other worlds that left behind tantalizing clues to their existence. ("Spock! You left your tricorder on the planet's surface! You've violated the Prime Directive!") And there are just as many books that have been written to disprove them. But the True Believers stubbornly insist that there is some stone left unturned, some shard of pottery unexamined, and it will be the One Clue that reveals all. It would be nice, but unfortunately so far all science has been able to come up with is that mankind is that we did this all on our own.

The problem with the Discovery Institute isn't that they've set out to prove and promote intelligent design; if they can actually scientifically test it and prove it to the level subjected to natural selection, fine. Unfortunately, though, they've become beholden to right-wing politics, bent on pushing an agenda that goes beyond scientific truths and into theocratic dogma, and they want to make it the law of the land. They hide it neatly behind the "teach the controversy" idea -- offering intelligent design on the same level as natural selection and letting the high school students make up their minds. That would be fine if the two theories were on an equal footing, but they're not; one has been tested in the laboratory and field for nearly 200 years; the other is a collection of myths and legends. They might as well teach Beowulf; it would certainly add some excitement to the classroom. But in terms of valid curriculum relevance and the advancement of knowledge and wisdom, it's bullshit, and the educational system in this country is in deep enough trouble without having to add the additional burden of proving once again that the Earth is round and that Galileo was framed by a bunch of ignorant tightass prelates.

PS: Lest any reader who is a fan of the Harry Potter series take offense at the title Welcome to Hogwarts and assume that I am impugning the reputation of that fine institution by comparing it to the Discovery Institute, you must remember that to the Muggle world, the theories put forth by DI are just as outlandish and scary as anything taught at Hogwarts...but probably not as much fun.

Frank Rich notes that the White House has lost control of the war in Iraq both in Iraq and here at home.

Cindy Sheehan couldn't have picked a more apt date to begin the vigil that ambushed a president: Aug. 6 was the fourth anniversary of that fateful 2001 Crawford vacation day when George W. Bush responded to an intelligence briefing titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States" by going fishing. On this Aug. 6 the president was no less determined to shrug off bad news. Though 14 marine reservists had been killed days earlier by a roadside bomb in Haditha, his national radio address that morning made no mention of Iraq. Once again Mr. Bush was in his bubble, ensuring that he wouldn't see Ms. Sheehan coming. So it goes with a president who hasn't foreseen any of the setbacks in the war he fabricated against an enemy who did not attack inside the United States in 2001.

When these setbacks happen in Iraq itself, the administration punts. But when they happen at home, there's a game plan. Once Ms. Sheehan could no longer be ignored, the Swift Boating began. Character assassination is the Karl Rove tactic of choice, eagerly mimicked by his media surrogates, whenever the White House is confronted by a critic who challenges it on matters of war. The Swift Boating is especially vicious if the critic has more battle scars than a president who connived to serve stateside and a vice president who had "other priorities" during Vietnam.

[...]

This summer in Crawford, the White House went to this playbook once too often. When Mr. Bush's motorcade left a grieving mother in the dust to speed on to a fund-raiser, that was one fat-cat party too far. The strategy of fighting a war without shared national sacrifice has at last backfired, just as the strategy of Swift Boating the war's critics has reached its Waterloo before Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury in Washington. The 24/7 cable and Web attack dogs can keep on sliming Cindy Sheehan. The president can keep trying to ration the photos of flag-draped caskets. But this White House no longer has any more control over the insurgency at home than it does over the one in Iraq.

As much as our little friends over on the right would be loath to admit it, both the shit and the Shi'ite have hit the fan, and it's going to be a very long road from here to November 2006 for them.

I watched Real Time with Bill Maher last night. Chris Rock was bizarre (there's a news flash); Paul Hackett was cool, funny, and had Bill speechless for moments at a time; Asa Hutchinson was the administration's cardboard cutout mouthpiece; and Phyllis Schlafly, via video hook-up from St. Louis, was the night's finest testimony to the embaler's art. (You should have seen the look on her face when Bill Maher brought up the fact that Mrs. Schlafly has a gay child, along with other prominent conservatives such as Dick Cheney and Alan Keyes. It would have curdled milk.) And then there was Kellyanne Conway, a conservative pollster and pundit who said that George W. Bush is the reborn Jesus H. Christ on a Schwinn bicycle. Ms. Conway is an attractive young lady with very blonde hair and a perky little voice who actually said "bullshit" at one point. (That's what I like about HBO; a conservative pundit says "bullshit" and they move right along. On CNN it can get you involuntary leave.) Maher was not as sharp as he used to be -- I guess being accused of treason by some congressman from Alabama will do that -- and he let some real howlers get by without any comment.

What I want to know is what's up with the conservative punditry corps? All of a sudden it seems that all the skinny blonde white women who are disappearing across America are showing up as Bush administration shills. It's like they're abducted from shopping malls and Greyhound stations in Albuquerque and then brainwashed (and bleached) to go on TV and sing the praises of Bush and Pilates. It's like they want to clone Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham. (And can someone prove that they aren't clones themselves?)

Maybe the GOP is trying to get hip, discarding their bow-tied preppies like Tucker Carlson and George F. Will and going for the Spike TV crowd. After all, if you can't win people over with logic, you can always go for the sex.

Cal Thomas says that Bush should meet with Cindy Sheehan, but only as a prop at one of his famous staged "town hall" meetings with other families who lost soldiers but still support the war, Iraqis who fled Saddam Hussein's regime, and turn it into a pro-war rally.

Gee, and the righties call us cynical? Not even close.

Former Massachusetts governor William Weld is planning to run for the Republican nomination for governor in New York.

I thought the carpetbagger label only applied to Democrats...

Cindy Sheehan went back to Los Angeles to take care of her mother, who has apparently suffered a stroke. There are some sick people out there who are rejoicing not only at Ms. Sheehan leaving Crawford but the fact that her mother has fallen ill.

While I don't think anybody with a heart on the right wishes Ms. Sheehan or her family ill, I'm pretty sure that someone will exploit her sudden departure as a loss of will or caving into the pressure that they will take credit for. Like I said, it's human nature to exploit someone else's situation for your own agenda.

What Ms. Sheehan's entire experience -- going to Crawford, then leaving to take care of her mother -- is that her family comes first. There is nothing more important to her than her son, and now her mother. But wait; aren't lefties supposed to be the ones who sneer at family values? Hmm. Go figure.

Our current political leaders would suffer greatly if either house of Congress changed hands in 2006, or if the presidency changed hands in 2008. The lids would come off all the simmering scandals, from the selling of the Iraq war to profiteering by politically connected companies. The Republicans will be strongly tempted to make sure that they win those elections by any means necessary. And everything we've seen suggests that they will give in to that temptation.

Rush Limbaugh on August 15:

I mean, Cindy Sheehan is just Bill Burkett. Her story is nothing more than forged documents. There's nothing about it that's real, including the mainstream media's glomming onto it. It's not real. It's nothing more than an attempt. It's the latest effort made by the coordinated left.

Rush Limbaugh on August 17:

Apparently, what's out there is that I said that Cindy Sheehan is no different than Bill Burkett, that Bill Burkett lied and Cindy Sheehan lied. They're actually out there, people saying that I am accusing Cindy Sheehan of making up the fact that she had a son and making up the fact that her son died in Iraq. And of course, I've never said this.

One of the side effects of recovery from addiction is short-term memory loss.

Either that or he's just full of shit.

Hey, kids! What time is it?

Welcome The Adventures of the Smart Patrol, the blog of Paul the Spud, to the blogroll. Also, Your Village Voice is looking for readers and contributors with a global persepctive, so if you're reading this from across the seas, stop by, say hi, and drop him a line.

Here's what's going on in The Liberal Coalition this week:

archy looks at the faces of Cindy Sheehan.

Bark Bark Woof Woof listens to the quiet conservatives.

blogAmY is busy, but she's still there.

bloggg reviews a stadium.

Chris has an album review.

Collective Sigh--if wishes were gas prices...

rdf at Corrente on bug problems.

Dodecahedron on some unusual customer service from some utility companies.

Dohiyi Mir passes on a letter from a soldier.

Echidne has the latest on what men are good for.

firedoglake on how Cindy Sheehan is being used -- by the right.

First Draft on justice for a bad guy.

The Fulcrum has questions.

The Gamer's Nook confirms he's from The Bronx.

Happy Furry Puppy gets hot.

iddybud shares a letter from Elizabeth Edwards.

In Search of Telford has a new address.

Left Is Right goes to Vacationland USA!

Liberty Street has the latest on the Downing Street Memo.

Make Me A Commentator catches up with Ben Shapiro.

Musing's musings on the dangers of being a wingnut.

Pen-Elayne's busy, but not too busy to share.

Rick reviews The Aristocrats.

Rook's Rant on Walken not runnen.

rubber hose on computer pain.

Go wish Science and Politics a happy blogiversary.

Scrutiny Hooligans finds more anti-war traitors lurking in America.

SoonerThought has something to say.

Speedkill on the Gaza pullout.

Steve Gilliard notes the point when the right-wing decline began.

T. Rex on people without values.

The Invisible Library on theology -- good and bad.

The Countess finds a home.

Wanda shares an e-mail from a truly sick nutjob.

WTF Is It Now?? on another grieving family.

Steve at YDD does a doggerel riff on the Northern Blights.

That's the news for now. Oh, and if you're reading this up at the Canadian Broadcasting Company: please settle your labor dispute and get back to work, eh?

From the Washington Post - Pat Oliphant

Hat tip to the Faithful Correspondent.

A few more updates on how the right wing is being noticeably quiet on the Cindy Sheehan story via Media Matters:

* Charles Krauthammer, syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor: On the August 16 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Krauthammer claimed that Sheehan's protest is "hurting our troops and endangering our troops." Krauthammer went on to state that Sheehan's statements "have to be attacked because they are libeling America, endangering America, and they are untrue from beginning to end." When Fox News contributor Juan Williams questioned whether Sheehan's statements actually endangered American troops, Krauthammer retorted, "You don't think it's encouraging, you don't think it's going to encourage Iraqis who are attacking us, particularly this kind of stuff about American imperialism?"

* Frank J. Gaffney Jr., Washington Times columnist: On the August 16 broadcast of PBS' The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, Gaffney asserted that Sheehan's statements "emboldened" America's enemies:

GAFFNEY: It will clearly be the case that enemies of this country, in a global war, of which Iraq is one front, will be emboldened and hardened, even as I think they are by these sorts of indications that we're losing our nerve, that we're being bloodied and that we're going to try to -- or at least some of us -- are going to try to compel the president to give up, that will only bring the threat we currently face, principally overseas, to our shores and, I think, do so in a way that will make the losses we've sustained in Iraq pale by comparison.

Additionally, in an August 16 column, Gaffney called Sheehan "the poster child for surrender" and argued that media coverage of Sheehan's protest "has further encouraged the conviction of our Islamofascist enemies that, as they expected, an indolent and self-indulgent United States cannot stand up to determined, ruthless foes." Gaffney added: "That perception can have but one effect: It puts an even bigger premium on the lives of every one of [Casey Sheehan's] comrades in Iraq and elsewhere, and to foreclose the outcomes for which he and the other fallen gave their lives."

* Bill O'Reilly, Fox News host: On the August 9 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly claimed that Sheehan "has thrown in with the most radical elements in this country" and "other American families who have lost sons and daughters in Iraq ... feel that this kind of behavior borders on treasonous."

* Kathleen Parker, nationally syndicated columnist: In an August 13 column, Parker wrote that Bush "can't [meet with Sheehan] because he's the president of the United States, because we're at war, and because every move he makes causes ripples around the world. Ripples that, depending on other circumstances, can get other sons and daughters killed." Parker added that, if Bush allows himself to become involved in a public confrontation with Sheehan, "the world is in greater danger. Democrats might be delighted to freeze that image in political time, but so would insurgents planning their next Baghdad ambush."

* Jimmy W. Hall, freelance writer: In an August 11 op-ed in The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Hall wrote: "Cindy Sheehan evidently thinks little of her deceased son, his sacrifice or of those left to do the noble work in his absence," adding, "The lady is on the wrong team. She's disgraceful." Hall asked, rhetorically, "Is the proper answer to her bitterness really to belittle and undermine public support for the efforts of those still serving? ... Would [Casey Sheehan] be proud of her near-treasonous actions?" Hall also offered Sheehan this advice:

My suggestion to her ... is that she think about the lives of those still in Iraq. Undermining public support for our efforts in Iraq helps the enemy, her son's murderers. They love people like her, but hate those like her heroic son.

* Chattanooga Times Free Press: From an August 16 editorial:

[I]t is unfortunate that Mrs. Sheehan's sadness now has caused her to be used as a "front" and a personal "symbol" by a variety of political anti-Bush and anti-war activists who are seeking to undermine the American military effort to establish freedom and defeat terrorism in Iraq and throughout the world.

The Times Free Press added, "It is saddening that Mrs. Sheehan has lost a son. It is saddening that Mrs. Sheehan's demonstration has sought to undermine the purpose of his service in a way that surely encourages his murderers."

* David Horowitz, right-wing pundit: Horowitz wrote the following in an August 12 entry on his FrontPageMag.com weblog:

Cindy Sheehan is the most prominent symbol and chief mouthpiece of a psychological warfare campaign against her own country in time of war that can only benefit its enemies on the field of battle. It is one thing to criticize a war policy. It is quite another to accuse your own country of creating the monster it went to war to remove and fabricating intelligence information to send American youth into battle to die for a lie -- which is what she has done. She has made herself a willing tool of anti-American forces in this country that want America to lose the war in Iraq and the war on terror generally. She is promoting a cause -- immediate withdrawal from Iraq -- that would lead to a bloodbath in the region and in the United States. She has joined forces with an Unholy Alliance on the other side in the epic battle for freedom in the Middle East and has shown that she will do and say anything to discredit the United States and its commander-chief -- acts which serve the enemy and endanger American lives. She is a disgrace to her brave son who gave his life for the freedom of ordinary Iraqis and the security of his countrymen. She has betrayed his sacrifice and embraced his enemies.

One of the recurring themes in the right wingers' attacks on Ms. Sheehan is that she has drawn the attention of such groups as MoveOn.org, she has become the pawn of the left wing anti-war movement, and her grief and anguish is being used to further the political agenda of the Democrats. First of all, the righties have it backwards; until Ms. Sheehan came along, the left did not have any well-defined point of reference for making their views heard or focusing the attention on what circumstances led to the war. The Downing Street Memo and all the questions it raises are one thing, but the Sheehans put a human face and a name to the anguish and sadness that war brings not only on the battlefield but at home and raised the question of why we went to war in starkly human terms. Now Ms. Sheehan has provided that icon, both in herself and her son. As for being some sort of concerted effort and conspiracy on the part of the anti-war movement, I can speak from personal experience that the left-wing and the Democrats in this country have trouble putting together a one-float parade, let alone pulling off a "conspiracy." Ms. Sheehan started this on her own. The rest just followed along.

It was only a matter of time before some people in the groups she attracted -- from both the left and the right -- would exploit her. That's human nature; everyone seems to find a way to work their agenda into someone else's story. Ms. Sheehan has been abused by some of her supporters, but she's also been very vocal about her disavowal of their methods and tactics. The tut-tutting from the right, however, sounds a little cynical seeing as how they have just come off a similar experience -- exploitation of a family's tragedy -- in the name of Terri Schiavo. The difference between the two, however, is that the right wing managed to get legislation passed and even got the president to break off from his vacation. Even if you accept the false premise that "outside groups" are exploiting Cindy Sheehan, the biggest gripe the righties have against MoveOn.org seems to be copyright infringement.

There have also been attacks on Ms. Sheehan for what this demonstration has cost her personally; her husband has filed for divorce. That's too bad. It's also irrelevant, and if I were certain members of the right-wing cheerleading squad, I wouldn't skate too close to the divorce issue (hello, Rush). The fact of the matter is that personal tragedy takes its toll on marriages no matter what. I would think that the break-up of the Sheehan's marriage would be another level of the loss this family faces and would drive home the point even further to the people who advocate "traditional family values." There's another war casualty.

The last and most obnoxious charge from the right is that somehow Ms. Sheehan is undermining the war effort, demoralizing our troops, and handing a propaganda victory to our enemies. Before I bring up the blatantly obvious point that the war itself seems to be undermining the war effort -- after all, how can you have an effort when you don't even know what your plan is to the point you don't even know what to call the damn thing -- let me remind the right wing once again that they were similarly stridently opposed to the last war. I don't recall them being so upset with the anti-war movement in 1999; they were leading it. Yet we seemed to have been able to execute that war and achieve a resolution to the conflict without their support and without handing a propaganda victory to the enemy.

Labeling Ms. Sheehan as somehow unpatriotic is slander. So far none of the upper-crust righties have sacrificed anything for this war except, perhaps, foregoing paying for it through their tax cuts. They say "we're at war" and demand blind obedience and deference to the president. Jawohl. (See what Bob Herbert of the New York Times has to say on that point.) Ms. Sheehan, on the other hand, along with thousands of other families and hundreds of thousands elsewhere have sacrificed more than any of them, and they did it under the orders of a man who won't even explain to her, let alone the American people, why we really went to war. And the vicious, exploitive, and downright silly attacks on Ms. Sheehan from the right wing and the nutsery prove that they have nothing to say.

There's a very nice article in The Globe and Mail about Amanda Plummer, whom I saw last week at Stratford in The Lark.

I spent the last week with my parents, who through the grace of good genetics and fortune, are still healthy and wise in their eighth decade. They have endowed their children with some good lessons, and through them I learned how to see life in the perspective of not just my own life but that of others and history. It's a valuable insight, and one that I think too few people -- regardless of their age -- appreciate.

They also taught me that it's never to late to learn, to grow, and to enrich your life. My mom started college in the late 1940's, dropped out to get married, and finished her degree in 2001. She and my dad are constantly reading and listening to new voices, and they're involved in many things such as political campaigns, land conservation, and the arts. They're constantly pointing out new things to me, and I keep finding myself having to catch up to them. It proves the adage that wisdom is knowledge tempered by life, and I have been very lucky to have good teachers.

I just wanted to pass that along.

Dan Zak in the Washington Post has this little bit of political news.

Why vote for the lesser of two evils when you can vote for someone who looks evil?

"Our great country is in a terrible downward spiral," says the message on http://www.walken2008.com/ , touting Christopher Walken for president. "It's time to be smart about our politics."

Can't you see it? Walken tearing apart Jeb and Hillary in the debates. Walken peering out from behind the voting booth curtain, or leering on "Larry King."

But the actor has "no intention of running," his rep says, and the Web site, registered in Los Angeles under the name Christopher Walken for President, is "100 percent false."

Still, imagine a State of the Union address delivered in syncopated Walkenese: "The state . . . of the union . . . is mahvelous . Just -- mahvelous." Pivot, glare. "I can't think of a better -- STATE -- for the union to be in ." Shoulder hunch, head twitch. Rapturous applause.

All seriousness aside, the only thing more disappointing than the campaign's fraudulence is its boring tag line, "It's time to get America back on track." Given the cache of great Walken lines, we stump for snappier slogans:

"When I win, everyone gets a glass of shhham-pan-ya."

"Like your father's gold watch, this country needs to be kept safe, secure and in a warm place." (See "Pulp Fiction.")

"Liberty is my weapon of choice." (Fat Boy Slim on the ticket?)

"Walken? I'm runnin'!"

"Catch me if you can."

"More cowbell."

The last one is from one of the funniest SNL skits of all time where Walken is a record producer for Blue Oyster Cult as they cut their classic hit "Don't Fear the Reaper." And don't forget his cameo in Annie Hall where he plays the suicide-prone brother. Sounds like the perfect candidate.

From the Washington Post:

A Brazilian man mistakenly shot by British police last month did not vault over a subway turnstile or run away and was being restrained by one officer when another shot him eight times, ITV News reported Tuesday, citing leaked police documents, witness statements and photographs.

Further, the television channel reported, Jean Charles de Menezes was not wearing a padded jacket that police have said led them to believe he could be concealing a bomb. A photograph of Menezes broadcast by ITV News on Tuesday night showed him lying in a pool of blood, wearing jeans and what appeared to be a shirt or jacket. According to a witness statement, he had been wearing a light denim jacket.

Scotland Yard said Tuesday that it would not be proper to comment on the report until a full account on the killing had been prepared.

The ITV report said police surveillance indicated Mendez [sic] had taken a bus from his apartment to the Stockwell subway station, where he calmly picked up a newspaper and walked through the turnstiles.

Differing with versions provided by police, ITV News said Menezes only ran as a train approached, as did others around him. Once on the train, according to what the channel said was a leaked police statement aired Tuesday night, a police officer pinned Menezes down when another officer shot him. A coroner's report said he was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder.

Scotland Yard officials have said repeatedly that the incident occurred in the highly charged atmosphere one day after the failed July 21 bombings, and two weeks after four bombs involving a bus and three subway lines killed 56 people, including the presumed bombers, and injured 700.

Family members have said Menezes, 27, was an innocent bystander who happened to live on a block where police were monitoring the apartment of a suspected bomber.

The BBC and the Times of London also has the story, and it looks like there will be a very serious inquiry into what happened.

Like father, like son.

Robert Steinback on Cindy Sheehan and other blasphemers:

For more than two years, many Americans have wondered what noble cause our soldiers are fighting for in Iraq. But to dare to ask the question brought certain denunciation from the neo-conservative political power grid: Only a traitorous, subversive, unpatriotic, flag-burning, communist America-hater would question the virtue of a U.S. military venture.

The intimidated media shied away from asking the question. A decorated Vietnam veteran presidential candidate waffled over posing it. The opposition party caved in rather than mount a challenge about it.

And so it went largely unasked, except by a few harmless pundits on the Left.

Meanwhile, the stinking morass of Iraq deepened, claiming military and civilian lives, depleting the U.S. treasury and eviscerating U.S. global prestige.

It took the mother of an American soldier slain in Iraq, Cindy Sheehan, camping outside President Bush's Texas ranch, to ask for an explanation of the noble cause her son died for -- and thereby expose the president's utter lack of a persuasive answer. Sheehan embodies the power grid's worst nightmare: A citizen whose authority to pose the question is close to unassailable (though they've tried) -- and whose personal loss makes her impervious to intimidation.

Sheehan's stand got me thinking about what other legitimate debates have been turned into sacred but dubious axioms. I came up with what I'm calling the Seven Blasphemies None Dare Debate -- concepts neo-conservative Bush loyalists feel must not, should not and cannot be questioned.

Political blasphemies aren't synonymous with conventional wisdom, which are ideas no one bothered to question for so long that they gradually became broadly accepted -- even if inaccurate.

Rather, political blasphemies are highly debatable, complex issues that have been deliberately reduced to simplistic maxims specifically to squelch debate -- which then work to the clear advantage of one side in that debate. Partisans need only express shock that anyone would dare question what everyone knows to be true, and voil! Debate closed.

Herewith, my nominations for the Seven Political Blasphemies of contemporary America, starting with the one Sheehan has challenged.

• Not every deployment of U.S. troops is, by definition, a noble exercise. Premise: Commanders-in-chief make mistakes (and, sometimes, mislead). "Support the troops" is not, as clever neo-con partisans imply, the equivalent of "don't question the president."

• It is overly simplistic to dismiss all those who resist the American presence in Iraq as "terrorists." Premise: As long as the militants targeting U.S. troops and allied Iraqis are lumped together as "terrorists" -- a step or two below "roaches" -- there is nothing to debate; they must be crushed. But doing so closes off discussion of their true motivations (which would help us understand what we're up against), as well as the possibility that the U.S. presence in Iraq is provoking the resistance.

• It can be argued that the world is not better off without Saddam Hussein. Premise: Nobody likes a dictator, but sometimes, there is a short-term geopolitical benefit in the presence of a tyrant who keeps rival factions from colliding -- Tito in the old Yugoslavia, for example. This doesn't have to undermine the long-run goal of eliminating all despots.

• Not every society is ready for American-style capitalism and democracy. Premise: Such transitions need time, planning and patience to work. Moving too quickly can create a politically volatile mess, such as in the old Soviet Union.

• The word of God is what one chooses to believe, not a universal truth that unerringly applies to all people. Premise: Your belief in your particular version of God is not sufficient justification for you to impose your will on others.

• The American social model may not be every reasonable person's idea of a perfect society. Premise: Other cultures are not necessarily inferior to ours simply because they are different. We, as Americans, should proudly promote our values, but our aim should be to persuade, not compel, others to embrace them.

• Criticizing the U.S. government is not synonymous with criticizing America. Premise: Nonviolent dissent can be both patriotic and healthy for the nation.

I'm only a harmless pundit on the Left. Still, I find myself hoping more Cindy Sheehans will acquire the courage to demand answers to the questions none dare ask.

At the risk of gilding the lily of the above commentary, let me point out that the typical responses to these points are immediately invalid if they can reduced to a bumper sticker such as "Support Our Troops" or "Love It Or Leave It" or "Jesus Is Lord." It's also pretty telling that the people who have knee-jerk reactions to these points as just left-wing "anger" are making the leap of logic that this applies to the current administration and therefore it's a partisan attack. I remember well much the same strong criticism from the right when President Clinton sent troops to Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo, and for us really old gaffers the same was said about President Johnson -- a Democrat -- during the war in Vietnam. So there.

From the New York Times:

State Department analysts warned the Clinton administration in July 1996 that Osama bin Laden's move to Afghanistan would give him an even more dangerous haven as he sought to expand radical Islam "well beyond the Middle East," but the government chose not to deter the move, newly declassified documents show.

In what would prove a prescient warning, the State Department intelligence analysts said in a top-secret assessment on Mr. bin Laden that summer that "his prolonged stay in Afghanistan - where hundreds of 'Arab mujahedeen' receive terrorist training and key extremist leaders often congregate - could prove more dangerous to U.S. interests in the long run than his three-year liaison with Khartoum," in Sudan.

[...]

Before 1996, Mr. bin Laden was regarded more as a financier of terrorism than a mastermind. But the State Department assessment, which came a year before he publicly urged Muslims to attack the United States, indicated that officials suspected he was taking a more active role, including in the bombings in June 1996 that killed 19 members American soldiers at the Khobar Towers in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.

Two years after the State Department's warning, with Mr. bin Laden firmly entrenched in Afghanistan and overseeing terrorist training and financing operations, Al Qaeda struck two American embassies in East Africa, leading to failed military attempts by the Clinton administration to capture or kill him in Afghanistan. Three years later, on Sept. 11, 2001, Al Qaeda struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an operation overseen from the base in Afghanistan.

Yeah, it would have been a good thing if we could have nailed the bastard back then. No doubt. Hindsight is 20/20, and it provides us with the sage knowledge that bin Laden was a lot more dangerous than just one of any number of other radicals out there. Chances are that if the Clinton administration would have gone to Congress in 1996 and asked them for money and troops to smoke him out, they would have been greeted with skepticism and accusations of going on a turd-hunt. We do know now that by the time the Clinton administration left office, they did view bin Laden as a major threat, and they did let the incoming Bush administration know it. To quote Dan Fogelberg, "Lessons learned are like bridges burned -- you only get to cross them but once."

It has been suggested by some that the conservatives have been "quiet" about Cindy Sheehan's demonstration outside of President Bush's ranch in Texas.

Readers, here is your chance to provide evidence to the contrary. Feel free to send links to conservative commentators, pundits, editorials, or blogs that can prove or disprove this theory. Make sure your links work; I don't want to be accused of providing unprovable testimony.

Have at it.

I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say. But I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life ... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy. And part of my being is to be outside exercising. So I'm mindful of what goes on around me. On the other hand, I'm also mindful that I've got a life to live and will do so. -- George W. Bush

"A balanced life"? "Good, crisp decisions"? What the hell is he talking about, breakfast cereal? This is the leader of the free world telling Cindy Sheehan, hey, sorry about your kid, but wow, look at my cholesterol count!

I think it is safe to say the Mr. Bush has never demonstrated any form of thoughtful or sensitive behavior to anyone unless he could profit from it or score some sort of political point. It's not in his nature, and it's not really his fault -- he was brought up that way. His father showed a ham-handedness towards any kind of sincere emotional expression ("Message: I care"), even though he seems more capable of it in his later years than he did when he was in office. W probably gets it most from his mother, who famously told Good Morning America in March 2003 that she didn't want to see pictures of body bags coming home from Iraq because it would disturb "my beautiful mind." (I don't think she was talking about the movie, either.)

Well, at least the president didn't attack Ms. Sheehan outright. He's got his bitches to do that for him. That's also typical upper-crust bully behavior; hire someone to do the dirty work for you, like having the chauffer register for the draft, just so he doesn't miss his tee time or the cocktail hour. It also makes it that much more callous and cynical when he tells the parents of dead soldiers that their sons or daughters died for a "noble cause" and that serving our country is the greatest sacrifice someone can make. It sounds both phony and hypocritical to come from a man who did his toughest fighting during Vietnam from a dentist's chair in Alabama and whose vice president had "other priorities" at the time. His idea of self-sacrifice is giving his golfing buddy a three-foot putt.

Perhaps the greatest lesson Ms. Sheehan is teaching America and the world is not just about her loss but just how amazingly shallow and impervious the president and his administration is to anyone who can't do them any profit. And perhaps the lesson is not lost on the millions of Americans who, until now, saw the war only in abstract. And perhaps they are beginning to see what damage has been done to us, to our nation, and to the world by following a leader who doesn't care who he hurts or what agony he creates by serving only himself.

I last filled the tank on my Mustang two weeks ago. It was $2.399 at the Liberty station on Coral Way and 17th. Today it's $2.599 at the same place.

Jesus H. Christ in a birchbark canoe.

If this was any other president, Congress would be holding hearings, the oil companies would be under a microscope, and the blow-dried blonde bleach jobs from Pinecrest in their SUV's would be screaming on their cellphones to their husbands to "for God's sake DO SOMETHING!" instead of scheduling their next botox treatment. But It's Okay If You're A Republican.

From the Rocky Mountain News:

They wouldn't be quiet. They wouldn't sit down. They snatched mini-bottles of liquor from the beverage cart, and then they urinated on the floor.

To United Airlines officials - and likely the other passengers on the packed flight from Pittsburgh on Sunday afternoon - their behavior was downright barbarian.

In fact, they are Barbarians.

The rowdy passengers, the airline said, were members of the Denver Barbarians Rugby Club, which had just placed seventh of 12 teams in a national tournament in Pittsburgh.

United spokesman Jeff Green said the rugby ruckus erupted on Flight 299 to Denver.

"The flight attendant crew wound up cutting off at least some of the members from the rugby team from liquor sales," Green said.

"And they weren't happy about that," he said. "They became very disruptive."

"Ultimately the flight attendant crew notified the captain and he turned on the seat belt sign," Green said.

That required all passengers to sit down and buckle up, but Green said it didn't work.

"It was ignored," he said.

Then, he said, some team members took liquor from the beverage cart parked in the galley - an estimated $90 worth.

United employees later found mini-bottles of red wine in seats on the plane, taken from the liquor cart, plus a fifth of vodka - an item not sold on board, Green said.

"They had brought their own liquor," he said.

Finally, Green said, a player or players urinated on the galley floor and on the door, walls and floor of a lavatory.

"That prompted the captain to request that authorities meet the airplane when it landed in Denver," he said.

Denver police officers were there when the plane landed at Denver International Airport.

Two rugby players were taken to a detoxification center to sober up, Denver police spokeswoman Virginia Lopez said.

No one was arrested. In recent months, at least two disruptive passengers have been charged federally, but in each of those cases there were allegations that the passengers had physically assaulted others.

Lopez said the team has agreed to pay United for the liquor that was taken.

Club president Paul Hoskins Sr. did not return a telephone call seeking comment.

My flights yesterday were uneventful.

See what happens when I leave the country for just a few days? The wingnuts go batshit crazy again.

Prominent conservative political and religious leaders called Sunday night for Senate approval of Supreme Court nominees who will vote to end the constitutional right to abortion, against recognition of same-sex marriage and for fewer restrictions on religious expression in public places.

The Supreme Court has sanctioned "the right to kill unborn children" and opened the door to legalized "homosexual sodomy," declared Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, which co-sponsored "Justice Sunday II."

[...]

Rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert H. Bork warned that the high court has defined homosexuality as "a constitutional right . . . and once homosexuality is defined as a constitutional right, there is nothing the states can do about it, nothing the people can do about it."

Actually, Mr. Bork, the Constitution defined homosexuality as a right when the Constitution defined what a U.S. citizen is because being gay is part of being a person. (Wow, it's a good thing that man did not make it onto the Court.)

It never ceases to amaze me how these so-called "conservatives" think that they're both entitled to rule the world and whine about being the victim if they can't have everything exactly the way they see it through their perverted lens of theology, capitalism-on-crack, and fear-mongering.

The purpose of Justice Sunday is to "help Christians who care about judicial activism to better understand what judges who legislate from the bench have done to the country," Perkins said. The case against judicial activism is "a very easy case to make," requiring only the citing of court rulings against school prayer and liberalizing the treatment of gays and the abortion rights case Roe v. Wade.

I don't hear them whining and complaining about judicial activism when it plays into their hands(vis. Bush v. Gore). And who do they go running to when they feel as if they have been slighted? The courts, of course, hoping to find an "activist judge" who will interpret, for example, the First Amendment as applying only to the federal government and not the states (as Justice Clarence Thomas has suggested), or help them whittle away at the First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments while not allowing them to touch one word of the Second. Someone really needs to sit them down and explain to them the concept of unintentional irony -- or call them on their blatant hypocrisy.

So the next time someone on the right cites the rally for the Voting Rights Act in Atlanta last week as a "campaign of fear and hate," we can thank their little friends in Nashville for providing us with a very good example of just exactly what "fear" and "hate" really is all about.

I'm back in Ohio for an overnight before heading home. I love going to Canada -- the people are friendly, the theatre was fantastic (see below), and they don't have this megalomanic complex about being the greatest force for democracy in the quadrant. They know who they are, they like who they are, and were it not for their unfortunate habit of having winter, I'd take a serious look at living there.

Well, they do have high gas prices. We paid 99.9 cents a litre to fill up in Stratford before leaving town. Allowing for the metric conversion and the exchange rate, that puts the price at $3.14 a gallon. Whoa. And anyone who thinks we pay too much tax here in the States should spend a weekend in Canada. They have a national sales tax and a provinicial sales tax that on some stuff added over 15% to the total bill. So if you think a national sales tax is the answer to all our tax problems, check out what they're doing in Canada and Ontario and get back to me. The upside is that in Canada you get what you pay for. Their cities and towns are neat and attractive, the roads are in better shape than they are here -- I almost had my fillings jarred out driving on I-75 from Detroit to Toledo -- and they spend their money on important things like the arts as well as the essentials like health care and defense (or "defence").

No country is perfect, and Canada has its share of problems, not to mention their fair share of wingnuts -- the hotel delivered daily copies of the National Post, which is slightly to the right of the Wall Street Journal. But it's a wonderful place to visit and be in a place where they're not obsessed with being better than everyone else; they know the only people they have to impress is themselves, and they do a fine job of that.

Now if we could only get them to annex a tropical island... On second thought, they allow their citizens to travel unhindered to Cuba. Do you think we could get Fidel to learn to like poutine?

We saw two plays yesterday, bringing the total to five in three days. The matinee was The Lark by Jean Anouilh and translated/adapted by Lillian Hellman. It is a re-telling of the story of Joan of Arc, starring Amanda Plummer as Joan and directed by Michael Lindsay-Hogg. It was wonderful. I won't go into the backstory of the whole play (you can read it here), but it was written in the shadow of the French occupation by Germany and World War II from Anouilh's persepective, and Hellman's adaptation, written while she was in the midst of McCarthyism, doesn't pull any punches in attacking those who conform their conscience to fit the politics of the time. That was a powerful message then, and it works very well today. (The Stratford Festival always seems to find one play in their season to gently tweak the noses of the 40% of their audience that comes from the United States, and this was the play this year.)

Last night was The Tempest. This is the last production for veteran actor William Hutt. The Festival stage, the mainstay of the theatre since its founding in 1953, which has been turned into everything from the moors of Scotland to Lady Teazle's drawing room to a shtetl in Russia, was stripped to its basic form of the three-quarter thrust envisioned by Tyrone Guthrie and designed by Tanya Moiseiwitsch (and imitated, successfully or otherwise, by many theatres around the world).

The Festival Stage

I can't count the number of plays I've seen here starting in 1970, and how many plays I've seen with William Hutt: King Lear, The Imaginary Invalid, The Tempest, Twelfth Night, Tartuffe, and even in drag as Lady Bracknell in The Importance of Being Earnest. All of his roles were insightful and met the highest criterion of the actor's craft: he became the character. Last night I didn't think of him as Willam Hutt playing Prospero; he was Prospero.

Shakespeare provided him with a perfect exit in the epilogue of the play as he humbly asks for the approval of the audience for the masque we've just seen:

As you from crimes would pardoned be
Let your indulgence set me free.

Then he turned and slowly walked upstage and through the door and into the comfort and quiet off stage.

From today's Washington Post:

"What we expected to achieve was never realistic given the timetable or what unfolded on the ground," said a senior official involved in policy since the 2003 invasion [of Iraq]. "We are in a process of absorbing the factors of the situation we're in and shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning."

Absorb this: 1,800 American and countless Iraqis dead. Terrorism is on the rise and the Muslim world distrusts the West even more than they did in 2001, which we didn't think was possible. Our lives are dictated by fear, not hope, and our leaders can't even decide what to call this global war on objects of prepositional phrases.

It's ironic that the biggest movies of the summer are all remakes -- and they all suck out loud. This remake of a previous dose of reality is even worse.

Frank Rich in the New York Times:

Like the Japanese soldier marooned on an island for years after V-J Day, President Bush may be the last person in the country to learn that for Americans, if not Iraqis, the war in Iraq is over. "We will stay the course," he insistently tells us from his Texas ranch. What do you mean we, white man?

A president can't stay the course when his own citizens (let alone his own allies) won't stay with him. The approval rate for Mr. Bush's handling of Iraq plunged to 34 percent in last weekend's Newsweek poll - a match for the 32 percent that approved L.B.J.'s handling of Vietnam in early March 1968. (The two presidents' overall approval ratings have also converged: 41 percent for Johnson then, 42 percent for Bush now.) On March 31, 1968, as L.B.J.'s ratings plummeted further, he announced he wouldn't seek re-election, commencing our long extrication from that quagmire.

But our current Texas president has even outdone his predecessor; Mr. Bush has lost not only the country but also his army. Neither bonuses nor fudged standards nor the faking of high school diplomas has solved the recruitment shortfall. Now Jake Tapper of ABC News reports that the armed forces are so eager for bodies they will flout "don't ask, don't tell" and hang on to gay soldiers who tell, even if they tell the press.

The president's cable cadre is in disarray as well. At Fox News Bill O'Reilly is trashing Donald Rumsfeld for his incompetence, and Ann Coulter is chiding Mr. O'Reilly for being a defeatist. In an emblematic gesture akin to waving a white flag, Robert Novak walked off a CNN set and possibly out of a job rather than answer questions about his role in smearing the man who helped expose the administration's prewar inflation of Saddam W.M.D.'s. (On this sinking ship, it's hard to know which rat to root for.)

As if the right-wing pundit crackup isn't unsettling enough, Mr. Bush's top war strategists, starting with Mr. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard Myers, have of late tried to rebrand the war in Iraq as what the defense secretary calls "a global struggle against violent extremism." A struggle is what you have with your landlord. When the war's über-managers start using euphemisms for a conflict this lethal, it's a clear sign that the battle to keep the Iraq war afloat with the American public is lost.

[...]

What lies ahead now in Iraq instead is not victory, which Mr. Bush has never clearly defined anyway, but an exit (or triage) strategy that may echo Johnson's March 1968 plan for retreat from Vietnam: some kind of negotiations (in this case, with Sunni elements of the insurgency), followed by more inflated claims about the readiness of the local troops-in-training, whom we'll then throw to the wolves. Such an outcome may lead to even greater disaster, but this administration long ago squandered the credibility needed to make the difficult case that more human and financial resources might prevent Iraq from continuing its descent into civil war and its devolution into jihad central.

Thus the president's claim on Thursday that "no decision has been made yet" about withdrawing troops from Iraq can be taken exactly as seriously as the vice president's preceding fantasy that the insurgency is in its "last throes." The country has already made the decision for Mr. Bush. We're outta there. Now comes the hard task of identifying the leaders who can pick up the pieces of the fiasco that has made us more vulnerable, not less, to the terrorists who struck us four years ago next month.

At the height of the Vietnam War and after the Tet offensive demonstrated the "last throes" of the Viet Cong, Sen. George Aiken of Vermont suggested that we just declare victory and go home.

The best that we can hope for is a stalemate...even now the White House is admitting that their vision of "democracy on the march" in Iraq is an uneasy coalition of factions that will look like post-Tito Yugoslavia. And we all remember what happened there -- Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo. Or do we?

There's an article in this morning's Washington Post dissecting the Democrats' response to the NARAL ad against John Roberts.

The decision by the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America to pull an incendiary ad attacking President Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court has produced a fresh round of recriminations within the Democratic Party and a return to a nagging question: Has the opposition lost its nerve?

When conservatives complained about the ad -- which suggested that nominee John G. Roberts Jr. condoned violence against abortion clinics -- a number of prominent liberals joined in the criticism and elected Democrats ran for cover rather than defend the ad, which was dropped.

Amid similar criticism against another controversial ad, most Republicans brushed aside demands to repudiate Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a group that had taken aim at John F. Kerry's war record. Some Democrats said the difference revealed on their side an ambivalence about modern political combat that helps explain why their party is out of power.

"Republicans don't mind running an ad that's entirely false, but Democrats have never learned, and I'm not sure many of them want to learn, how to play that kind of politics," said Robert Shrum, an adviser to several Democratic presidential campaigns. NARAL had to pull the ad, he said, because "they weren't getting support from any substantial quarter."

[...]

While both parties have participated in their share of nasty and dishonest politics over the years, a number of Democrats have come to the conclusion that they need to be tougher. "You can't blame your opponents for applying a strategy that beats your brains out," former president Bill Clinton said in a speech last month, in which he mocked Democrats for responding to attacks like Pavlov's dogs by saying, "Oh, how mean they are."

"You can't ask them to stop being mean to us," the former president said. "You've got to be tough enough to beat it."

But the Democrats have had trouble shedding a tendency to complain. When GOP ads in 2002 showed images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and portrayed Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.) as soft on terrorism, Democrats howled. But a version of the ad continued, and Cleland, who lost limbs in Vietnam, was defeated.

Democratic protests were similarly ignored in the 2004 campaign, when GOP ads said the president's critics attacked him "for attacking the terrorists." More recently, Democrats have complained about conservative charges that their opposition to some of Bush's judicial nominees means Democrats are anti-Christian -- but the accusations persist.

A number of Democrats still say the party's best hopes are on the high road. "We have to define the reckless left of our party and differentiate ourselves," said former Clinton aide Lanny Davis, who denounced the NARAL ad. He said such "smear and innuendo" has caused his party to lose recent elections.

[...]

Republicans, attacking the NARAL ad, trumpeted the finding of the nonpartisan FactCheck.org that the abortion group's ad was "false" and "misleading." But that same organization had labeled the Swift boat ads "dubious" and found "a serious discrepancy in the account of Kerry's accusers," which was at odds with military records.

But Mueller said he never considered pulling the Swift boat ads when Democrats reacted with fury and independent arbiters declared the ads to be misleading. "There was never any question in our minds," he said.

I have no problem whatsoever with the Democrats being just as mean and hard-hitting as the Republicans. I do have a problem with taking liberties with the facts. The Republicans do not, but that doesn't mean we on the left should lower our standards just because they don't have any. As R. Crumb noted in ZAP Comix in 1970, "Be overt, be extreme, go all the way -- but always play fair." If we have to succeed by being just as deceitful, dishonest, demagogic, and Nuremberg-like in following in blind faith as the right wing, we have no higher claim to our stand than they do. The objective is not to win for the sake of defeating our opponent but to convince people that we have the values and beliefs that will make things better, not because the other guy is evil. It may sound naive in this day and age to eschew Elizabethan politics, but the goal of an election is to get people to vote for you rather than against the other party.

The light posting over the last day or so is based on a number of factors, not the least of which is that I'm not spending a whole lot of time in my hotel room, but rather out doing the things that one does when they're on vacation at a theatre festival in Canada. In addition, the wi-fi connection at the hotel is sketchy at best, so making entries takes longer than dial-up. But, to quote Lanford Wilson, you go with what you got.

So far we've seen three of the five plays on our schedule: Fallen Angels, a hilarious comedy by Noel Coward; Into the Woods, the popular musical by Stephen Sondheim, done very well; and last night we attended the opening performance of Edward II by Christopher Marlowe (We knew it was the first night because the theatre was sold out and high-ranking members of the Stratford organization were there, and they played "O Canada" before the curtain went up.) The play was performed in Stratford's newest and smallest theatre space, the Studio, which seats 250. It was also the first time in the fifty-three year history of Stratford that they have performed any of Marlowe's plays. But if last night's performance is any guide, they have been missing out on some really good theatre lo these many years.

Christopher Marlowe was a contemporary of Shakespeare, but he was the bad boy of the time. He was rowdy, he liked to drink and hang out in bars, and he was gay. Edward II reflects a lot of Marlowe's character -- it is rough in language although, in many ways, as well-crafted as Shakespeare, and he pulls no punches in creating flawed heroes and deeply treacherous villains. This particular production makes no apologies for Edward II's love for and physical attraction to another man; indeed, the first greeting between the king and his lover on stage is a passionate kiss, and later on the director, Richard Monette, makes it clear that what we see on stage between Edward and Gaveston is just foreplay. It's little wonder that this play was kept in the library here in quiet and staid southeast Ontario.

But there's much more to the play than the gay plotline; Marlowe shows us the barbaric and childish behavior of a king with few limits on his power, and the rebellion of his barons is not a revulsion to the gender of the king's lover, it is against his lowly station in life; he's not one of them. Allies become enemies with the promise of favor and civil war is fomented simply for revenge. Marlowe does not hold back on the grislier side of kings -- people are executed with the wave of a hand, and unlike Shakespeare, there are no long soliloquies between the beginning of a death scene and the end of life (in Act V of Othello, for example, you want to shout, "Oh, die already!" at Desdemona). And in this production, there is no doubt that Edward II meets a terrible end. (If you know the play, sorry about the pun.)

As is the case in all good theatre, the lesson in a play that was written 400 years ago can speak to our own time. An arrogant ruler who wants what he wants with no regard for his advisors, who favors the sycophants over the wise, and who sets in motion wars and conflicts with other nations over trivial or even false beliefs comes to a bad end, and his successor is left to clean up the mess. You may, if you wish, apply that to our time, but certainly Marlowe saw it in his own time as well, and the message rings true to many other points in human history; this play would have delivered the same punch in 1968 as today, albeit the gay aspect would have been a little more Carnaby Street and less International Mr. Leather.

Christopher Marlowe was killed in a bar fight, stabbed in the eye with a knife. He was 29 years old. I have no doubt that had he lived, he would have given Shakespeare a run for his money as one of the greatest playwrights of the language, and it would have been interesting to see the influence he would have had then...and now.

Today we see The Lark, then tonight The Tempest, starring William Hutt in his last Stratford production; he's retiring from the stage at the age of 86. What's really sobering is that when I first came to Stratford and saw Mr. Hutt perform, he was younger than I am now.

More later.

This is the international edition of the Friday Blogaround because it comes to you from exotic Stratford, Ontario, home of the world-famous Stratford Theatre Festival and the Ontario Pork Congress.

Welcome tinylittledots to the blogroll.

Here's what's making news in The Liberal Coalition this week.

archy has some news tidbits that are scary.

Bark Bark Woof Woof gooses Mark Halperin.

blogAmY takes on a duck.

bloggg has the lowdown on the free Autism2005.org on-line conference.

Chris has a message for the president.

Collective Sigh on trusting some sources.

Corrente wants to when is a terrorist a terrorist.

Dodecahedron ponders the nature of God.

Dohiyi Mir offers a trip to space...but it will take more than just some extra frequent-flier miles.

Pseudo-Adrienne at Echidne takes apart the NARAL ad and the critiques thereof.

firedoglake reports that the anti-Sheehan rally has fizzled.

First Draft updates the Plame story.

The Fulcrum does his own blogaround.

The Gamer's Nook gets ready to move to a new site, but leaves his cars behind.

Happy Furry Puppy on plans for 9/11+4. Bring your own popcorn.

iddybud sums up the week's news.

Left Is Right sums up some other things.

Liberty Street wonders who's left in Bahgdad to run the place.

Make Me a Commentator appeals to Ann Coulter's better nature.

Musing's musings comes up with a Dante-esque vision of Hell.

Pen-Elayne pays tribute to the dead and the living.

Rick reviews The Aristocrats.

Rook's Rant shares a laugh.

rubber hose has the absolute latest on when we're leaving Iraq.

Science and Politics on obsessions.

Scrutiny Hooligans says you can get a pizza and watch a propaganda film at the same time.

SoonerThought: Fox takes on the Stones.

Speedkill takes on Mona Charen and Grand Theft Auto.

Steve Gilliard on the legacy of Peter Jennings.

T. Rex on the cost of doing the health business.

The Invisible Library on what tops the reading list at Gitmo.

The Countess says that bloggers are rich. We are?

Wanda says resistance is not futile.

WTF Is It Now?? has the link to Bob Novak's true self.

The Yellow Doggerel Democrat rolls out the poetry for the prez.

That's it for now, and I'm on vacation anyway. Have a good weekend.

From the Washington Post:

It was a historic day, because one woman launched a United States Senate campaign, and another woman successfully piloted the shuttle launch back to Earth.

-- Rep. Katherine Harris (R-Fla.), formally announcing her Senate bid Tuesday.

Well, the shuttle made it without crashing and burning. I don't think we'll be able to say the same about Ms. Harris.

Welcome to "the true north, strong and free." I'm safely ensconced in a lovely hotel built on the site of the old Kroehler Furniture Factory. They provide high-speed internet access that is slightly flakey -- the speed fluctuates between 11 Mbps and 1, and the signal strength goes from very good to very low, but compared to what I had last year -- nothing -- I'll take it. And it's free.

Outlook doesn't work here. MSN doesn't think globally unless it's hiring tech support in Bangalor. I can suffer through getting e-mail through Hotmail, though.

Anyway, I'm glad to be here -- to be in a country where, as protogenes notes, being a liberal isn't a dirty word; it's a party!

Tonight we have dinner at a place called The Bistro, then to see Noel Coward's Fallen Angels.

Go here to see the entire Stratford Festival line-up and follow along as I take in the theatre.

I'm leaving shortly for Stratford, Ontario. I've been promised by the hotel that I'll have high-speed wi-fi access, but until I get there and see, I can't be sure if my American computer can shake hands with the Canadians, eh? So if it works, I'll be posting from there this afternoon. If not...well, I'll keep writing and then do a big posting when I get back to the USA on Sunday night.

Meanwhile... the latest chapter of Small Town Boys has been posted at The Practical Press. Catch up on your reading.

We don't need this:

An advertisement that a leading abortion-rights organization began running on national television on Wednesday, opposing the Supreme Court nomination of John G. Roberts Jr. as one "whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against other Americans," quickly became the first flashpoint in the three-week-old confirmation process.

Several prominent abortion rights supporters as well as a neutral media watchdog group said the advertisement was misleading and unfair, and a conservative group quickly took to the airwaves with an opposing advertisement.

Now the story will not be about John Roberts and his views on reproductive choice or gay rights or states' rights or any of the things that matter. It will now be about NARAL going off on him. It has already turned the discussion away from the story and about the process, and that is just what we who want to examine Judge Roberts and his views do not need.

It also plays right into the hands of the right wing who will portray Judge Roberts as a victim of unfair and "outrageous" tactics. This is what the right wing is best at: playing the poor pitiful victim of the nasty liberals. You can almost hear the guttaral whining ("Gollum! Gollum!"). It makes no difference to them, of course, that they do the exact same thing when they have the chance; vis. "Swift Boat Veterans" last year.

NARAL has been pushing themselves into the corner for the last several years, leaving more moderate and reasonable advocates for reproductive rights such as Planned Parenthood to shy away from their stridency and hope, with some faint hope, that they are not tarred with the same extremist brush that NARAL uses. This howler, however, just makes it worse, and I wish they'd pull it.

I have made the greatest discovery in the history of cultural geography: birds of a feather flock together.

All parents want what's best for their kids. It turns out, according to this story in the Washington Post, that "what's best" may be dependant on what party you belong to. Republicans want their kids to grow up to be captains of industry or corporate drones, while Democrats all want their kids to be poets and playwrights.

Forget tax cuts, the abortion issue and whether they wear the American flag as a lapel pin. We have, it appears, a new way of distinguishing Republicans from Democrats, at least in the federal city.

It emerged last week, without fanfare, at an annual gathering of young Republicans, from Tim Goeglein, White House deputy director of public liaison.

[...]

Goeglein recalled a dinner party that he and his wife recently attended in Northwest. Out of the six couples around the table, Goeglein and his wife were the only Republicans.

As is inevitably the case, he said, the conversation soon turned to the couples' children -- most 5 or 6 years old -- and aspirations for their future occupations. One parent said editor; another, publisher; a third wanted the child to go into education.

"I was intrigued by the question, and the answers of every one of our Democratic friends," Goeglein said. Not one parent, he said, gave an answer that would be more typical of Republicans. "Our party, in the way it is constituted, we think of medicine, we think of law, we think of business. We don't think, gee, I hope my son grows up to be a great playwright or painter or poet," he explained.

Whether a future government employee, a bureaucrat, would win the approval of a GOP parent, he did not say.

[...]

Author Mark Helprin, who considers himself a conservative, agrees. "Of course, you would have to be insane to hope your child grows up to be a playwright or poet. Given the odds, you would have to be quite cavalier about your children's future."

He recalled that at one point, a million people reported to the IRS that they were writers. Helprin believes only 50 to 100 people at a time can be successful in that occupation.

[...]

Robert Lynch, president and chief executive of Americans for the Arts, also was not convinced by Goeglein. "I would say that it makes a great dinner anecdote, but I don't think it's true." He pointed out that congressional Republicans sided in favor of the National Endowment for the Arts when the Reagan administration was threatening to close it down.

But for Helprin, the divide remains. "The arts community is generally dominated by liberals because if you are concerned mainly with painting or sculpture, you don't have time to study how the world works. And if you have no understanding of economics, strategy, history and politics, then naturally you would be a liberal."

Speaking only for myself, I know that my parents were only concerned that I grow up and do whatever it was that made me happy and fulfilled. Choosing a career in theatre education and following my passion for writing was my choice, not theirs, and they have stood behind me through every step and stumble.

I knew a number of kids growing up who were forced to follow in their father's footsteps; to go along with the family business or do whatever it took to follow the straight and narrow path their parents laid out for them. A lot of them were have told me that their biggest regret was not getting the chance to follow their own dreams and paths. And quite a few of them are miserable.

The biggest difference is that liberals do not measure success by comparing bank accounts. We measure it by making a contribution to the world in whatever way we can by whatever method we can. If that's through medicine, education, or even business acumen, so be it.

As for Mr. Halperin, I think Jacques Brel, the late Flemish poet and songwriter said it best: "If people like them had their way, they would paint the world the color of goose shit."

As much as I liked Peter Jennings and respected his work as a journalist, isn't it a little creepy to still call the program he anchored ABC World News Tonight with Peter Jennings now that he's dead?

Not to sound too cynical, but it sounds like ABC is exploiting the name of a dead man. I wonder what a man whom all his colleagues described as humble and self-effacing would think of it?

As my flight was taxiing in from the runway at O'Hare, I happened to glance over and see Air Force One parked on the other side of the field. Then I remembered that Bush was in Illinois to sign the highway bill.

I've always wanted to see it up close or actually go aboard it. The chances that that will happen during the present administration are about as likely as me winning the Mr. Universe contest. The closest I've been to it was when I lived in Albuquerque and Clinton came to town several times. My office was right at the end of the east-west runway of the Albuquerque International Sunport, which shares the land with Kirtland Air Force base, and we'd go outside and watch it land. The people I worked with were staunch Republicans so they'd go out and threaten to moon the plane. They didn't have the nerve, though, in the end (oops -- bad pun).

Fortunately the arrival and departure of the current primary passenger of Angel (the Secret Service code name for it) didn't disrupt my flights. I don't care who's the president; I still think it's a cool plane.

The rest of the trip, by the way, was uneventful. I wore a big Bark Bark Woof Woof shirt...just spreadin' the love. Hey...get one of your very own and help me spread it even more.

I'm off on my annual pilgrimage to see some of the best theatre in North America at the Stratford Festival in Stratford, Ontario. I've been promised by the hotel that they have high-speed wi-fi, so unlike last year, I'll be able to post from there -- Bark Bark Woof Woof goes international!

Meanwhile, the house is in good hands and the plants are watered.

Next stop: Perrysburg, Ohio.

Paul Hackett, the Marine who ran for Congress in the Ohio 2nd district, had a few choice thoughts on his critics, especially Rush Limbaugh. Via Daily Kos (BobcatJH):

Appearing on yesterday's edition of "The Ed Schultz Show," Paul Hackett made several stand-out statements (mp3 file). My favorite came in reference to his being attacked by Rush Limbaugh:

That's typical for that fatass drug addict to come up with something like that. There's a guy ... I didn't hear this, but actually when I was on drill this weekend, I've got to tell you, he lost a lot of Republican supporters with his comments. Because they were coming up to me, telling me, "I can't believe he said that! Besides that, he called you a soldier. He doesn't know the difference between a soldier and a marine!"

[...]

So generally, the consensus is Rush doesn't know squat about patriotism. He's typical of the new Republican. He's got a lot of lip and he doesn't walk the walk. The fact of the matter is, I went to Iraq to serve my country. I left my nice house, my nice wife by my choice because I thought it was the right thing to do. And man, if I was good enough to be able to see into the future that Rob Portman was going to step down from Congress, I mean I should actually be running for something a lot more than Congress. I went to Iraq because I wanted to serve my country and be with my Marines.

I think it probably says more about Rush Limbaugh than it does anybody else that he comes up with those thought processes. And I think it's indicative of today's Republican party, which is patriotic lite translated to anybody who serves their country who truly who truly serves their country and demonstrates it by their actions as opposed to their flapping gums.

They want to attack us. But the fact of the matter is they can attack me, but I punch back just as hard as I get. Ask Rush how come he wasn't taking phone calls for the two days when he was on the attack with me. Ask him why his phone lines were clogged up. That's because he was getting thousands of calls from veterans from this war and other wars who were clogging up his phone lines, giving him an earful.

Yeah, I know the race is over and in the long term it doesn't advance the cause of progressives by beating up on a bully. But, boy, does it feel good.

Maureen Dowd is back, she's on the Cindy Sheehan story, and she nails the president as the two-dimensional cipher of vapid platitudes that we've come to know and barely tolerate.

It's amazing that the White House does not have the elementary shrewdness to have Mr. Bush simply walk down the driveway and hear the woman out, or invite her in for a cup of tea. But W., who has spent nearly 20 percent of his presidency at his ranch, is burrowed into his five-week vacation and two-hour daily workouts. He may be in great shape, but Iraq sure isn't.

It's hard to think of another president who lived in such meta-insulation. His rigidly controlled environment allows no chance encounters with anyone who disagrees. He never has to defend himself to anyone, and that is cognitively injurious. He's a populist who never meets people - an ordinary guy who clears brush, and brush is the only thing he talks to. Mr. Bush hails Texas as a place where he can return to his roots. But is he mixing it up there with anyone besides Vulcans, Pioneers and Rangers?

[...]

Selectively humane, Mr. Bush justified his Iraq war by stressing the 9/11 losses. He emphasized the humanity of the Iraqis who desire freedom when his W.M.D. rationale vaporized.

But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.

Welcome back, Mo -- we've missed you.

From the Washington Post:

Thrown on the defensive by recent revelations about Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr.'s legal work, White House aides are delaying the release of tens of thousands of documents from the Reagan administration to give themselves time to find any new surprises before they are turned into political ammunition by Democrats.

Before Roberts's July 19 selection by President Bush, there was no comprehensive effort to examine the voluminous paper trail from his previous tours as an important legal and political hand under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, administration officials said.

Three weeks later, these officials say they recognize that Roberts's record is going to be central to Senate confirmation hearings scheduled to begin Sept. 6, and lawyers and political aides are urgently reviewing more than 50,000 pages -- at the same time denying requests from Democrats for an immediate release.

It's not like the White House didn't expect this; his name's been batted around since last winter when it was revealed Rehnquist was sick, and the White House staff had face-to-face interviews with him back in the spring. And it's not like they didn't expect him to be grilled about his previous work. But this kind of sloppy prep work is part of the arrogant charm they have; they figured they'd put out this nice bland white guy with and expect him to sail through with a few little bumps from the right -- he wrote briefs defending queers! Horrors! -- and the left -- he did the same for Operation Rescue! -- and that everyone would just, y'know, chill out, waiting for the next pretty white woman to disappear. Yeah, well, this is the same kind of prep work they gave to their exit strategy in Iraq.

Discovery made it home safe and sound.

From the South Florida Sun-Sentinel:

It's not your imagination: The lightning show in recent days has been more intense, more brilliant and slower moving than a typical summer thunderstorm.

As usual with the weather, it's a confluence of effects that has shot hundreds more lightning bolts to the ground than the summertime average in South Florida. National Weather Service experts say it mostly has to do with unsettled upper atmospheric conditions and an atypical wind pattern.

The layman's perspective: More powerful thunderstorms are arriving later in the day and hanging around longer. Driving is that much more miserable, and working and playing outside are that much more dangerous. People have been hit, but not killed, and houses have been destroyed.

[...]

On Saturday, a series of lightning strikes hit Miami International Airport's longest runway, leaving three holes. The largest was a foot deep and about 18 inches across, airport spokesman Marc Henderson said. The runway was closed about 80 minutes while crews used quick-setting asphalt to repair it. There were numerous flight delays and nine flight diversions...

I live about five miles south of MIA and I can tell you it was a hell of a storm. Not only was there a lot of lightning and thunder, we had enough rain to the point that I was checking the internet for the prices of gopherwood.

I was reminded of a backpacking trip I took into the Uintah Mountains in 1974. We got caught in a thunderstorm and took refuge in a safe spot under a rock cliff, away from trees and high points. As the storm moved closer, we could feel the static electricity building up in the air, and one girl started to see St. Elmo's Fire on some of the tree branches outside. She was pretty upset until we explained that it was a natural occurance. She heaved a huge sigh of relief and said, "Oh, wow, I thought I was having an LSD flashback!"

One thing the U.S. Senate has never been accused of is being a collection of meek and humble people, and they do not like it when they get smacked around by another branch of the government, especially one they can't control, like the Judiciary. (It's totally another matter when they're sucking up to the president. Then it's Sycophancy Central.)

Sen. Arlen Specter wants to know where John Roberts stands on the Supreme Court lipping off to the House and Senate.

Lawmakers have little control over what the Supreme Court does beyond the setting of the court's budget, the confirmation of new justices and the impeachment of justices and judges for wrongdoing. That leaves Roberts' confirmation hearings as a rare opportunity for court criticism when lawmakers know justices and prospective justices are listening.

Specter called the limiting of Congress' authority "the hallmark agenda of the judicial activism of the Rehnquist Court."

"I do see a great deal of popular and congressional dissatisfaction with the judicial activism; and at the minimum, the Senate's determination to confirm new justices who will respect Congress' constitutional role," Specter said.

Republicans are hoping for smooth hearings followed by a quick confirmation vote on Roberts. Though Specter didn't criticize Roberts specifically, his comments introduced a new element into the discussion.

Democrats pointed to Specter's letter as an indication that they, too, should be able to ask Roberts about specific legal cases at his Sept. 6 confirmation hearing. Roberts' supporters have argued that the high court nominee shouldn't be forced to talk about individual cases and what he thinks about the issues involved.


Said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.: "Senator Specter's questions aren't exactly identical to the 80-plus that I've asked of Judge Roberts, but the spirit of asking them and the need for a response is the same."

In one case Specter cited, U.S. v. Lopez, the high court in 1995 threw out a federal law that banned possession of a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, saying Congress lacked the authority to enact it. In U.S. v. Morrison, the Supreme Court in 2000 threw out part of the federal Violence Against Women Act, saying rape victims could not sue their attackers in federal court because it was up to the states -- not Congress -- to give such help to women victimized by violence.

In both cases, Congress said its power to regulate interstate commerce gave it the ability to pass the laws. The court disagreed.

I know the supporters of Judge Roberts don't want the questioning to go beyond name, rank, serial number, and favorite Beatle, but this could get into some interesting questions. Let the ego-blasting begin!

Good news for oil companies who get tax breaks to search for oil. Good news for solar panel manufacturers -- if you go solar you can get up to $3,000 in tax credits. Spread that out over the ten years it will take to re-coup the expense of installing the panels... okay, it's the thought that counts. And it's good news for software writers who will find full employment in updating all of the programs out there that have built-in calendars in PDA's, etc. Changing all the clocks to adjust to the new daylight-savings time parameters will keep them working overtime.

As Lou Dobbs noted on CNN last night, though,

Before signing the legislation, President Bush said the bill is the first step toward a more affordable and reliable energy future for Americans. But then in an understatement that won the quote of the day award this evening, he added, "This bill is not going to solve our energy challenges overnight."

Interesting that he signed the bill in Albuquerque, just down the road from Los Alamos, and a little tweak at the former Secretary of Energy and now Governor of New Mexico Bill Richardson.

Yesterday I received a note from someone telling me that Cindy Sheehan, the woman standing vigil outside Bush's ranch in Crawford, met with Bush in June 2004 and felt comforted by meeting the president, and that "[f]or the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again." The implication was that Mrs. Sheehan was originally a supporter of the war and has somehow been turned into an anti-war nut by the looney left, taking advantage of her son's death to exploit their hatred of the president. It turns out that the note was basically a cut-and-paste from Matt Drudge, leaving out the link to the entire story and distorting what Mrs. Sheehan had to say.

Here is the entire story and the link to it in the Vacaville (CA) Reporter from June 24, 2004.

Bush, Sheehans share moments
By David Henson/Staff Writer

Since learning in April that their son, Army Spc. Casey Sheehan, had been killed in Iraq, life has been everything but normal for the Sheehan family of Vacaville.

Casey's parents, Cindy and Patrick, as well as their three children, have attended event after event honoring the soldier both locally and abroad, received countless letters of support and fielded questions from reporters across the country.

"That's the way our whole lives have been since April 4," Patrick said. "It's been surreal."

But none of that prepared the family for the message left on their answering machine last week, inviting them to have a face-to-face meeting with President George W. Bush at Fort Lewis near Seattle.

Surreal soon seemed like an understatement, as the Sheehans - one of 17 families who met Thursday with Bush - were whisked in a matter of days to the Army post and given the VIP treatment from the military. But as their meeting with the president approached, the family was faced with a dilemma as to what to say when faced with Casey's commander-in-chief.

"We haven't been happy with the way the war has been handled," Cindy said. "The president has changed his reasons for being over there every time a reason is proven false or an objective reached."

The 10 minutes of face time with the president could have given the family a chance to vent their frustrations or ask Bush some of the difficult questions they have been asking themselves, such as whether Casey's sacrifice would make the world a safer place.

But in the end, the family decided against such talk, deferring to how they believed Casey would have wanted them to act. In addition, Pat noted that Bush wasn't stumping for votes or trying to gain a political edge for the upcoming election.

"We have a lot of respect for the office of the president, and I have a new respect for him because he was sincere and he didn't have to take the time to meet with us," Pat said.

Sincerity was something Cindy had hoped to find in the meeting. Shortly after Casey died, Bush sent the family a form letter expressing his condolences, and Cindy said she felt it was an impersonal gesture.

"I now know he's sincere about wanting freedom for the Iraqis," Cindy said after their meeting. "I know he's sorry and feels some pain for our loss. And I know he's a man of faith."

The meeting didn't last long, but in their time with Bush, Cindy spoke about Casey and asked the president to make her son's sacrifice count for something. They also spoke of their faith.

While meeting with Bush, as well as Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, was an honor, it was almost a tangent benefit of the trip. The Sheehans said they enjoyed meeting the other families of fallen soldiers, sharing stories, contact information, grief and support.

For some, grief was still visceral and raw, while for others it had melted into the background of their lives, the pain as common as breathing. Cindy said she saw her reflection in the troubled eyes of each.

"It's hard to lose a son," she said. "But we (all) lost a son in the Iraqi war."

The trip had one benefit that none of the Sheehans expected.

For a moment, life returned to the way it was before Casey died. They laughed, joked and bickered playfully as they briefly toured Seattle.

For the first time in 11 weeks, they felt whole again.

"That was the gift the president gave us, the gift of happiness, of being together," Cindy said.

I have a rule: when I cut-and-paste a story and snip it down to post revelant portions, I provide a link to the original story so that my readers can judge for themselves. I daresay most if not all reputable bloggers do the same. I wish the same could be said for some others.

Via Salon.com/AP:

CRAWFORD, Texas -- The mother of a fallen U.S. soldier who is holding a roadside peace vigil near President Bush's ranch shares the same grief as relatives mourning the deaths of Ohio Marines, yet their views about the war differ.

"I'm angry. I want the troops home," Cindy Sheehan, 48, of Vacaville, Calif., who staged a protest that she vowed on Sunday to continue until she can personally ask Bush: "Why did you kill my son? What did my son die for?"

[...]

Sheehan was among grieving military families who met with Bush in June 2004 at Fort Lewis, near Seattle, Wash. That was just two months after her son, Casey, was killed in Sadr City, Iraq, on April 4, 2004.

Since then, she said, various government and independent commission reports have disputed the Bush administration's claims that Saddam Hussein had mass-killing chemical and biological weapons -- a main justification for the March 2003 invasion.

"I was still in shock then," Sheehan said in a telephone interview.

"All of those reports prove my son died needlessly," said Sheehan. "This proved that every reason George Bush gave us for going to war was wrong."

Sheehan, who formed a group called Gold Star Families For Peace and has spoken out against the war across the nation, talked for about 45 minutes on Saturday with Steve Hadley, Bush's national security adviser, and Joe Hagin, deputy White House chief of staff, who went out to hear her concerns.

Appreciative of their attention, yet undaunted, Sheehan said she planned to continue her protest along the road during Bush's stay through the end of the month.

"If he doesn't come out and talk to me in Crawford, I'll follow him to D.C.," she said. "I'll camp on his lawn in D.C. until he has the courtesy and the integrity and the compassion to talk to somebody whose life he has ruined."

I can envision the right-wing's response to this: our president deserves unswerving support, our cause in Iraq is noble and we should do everything we can to defend our nation. Okay, here's a site where you can go and show your real support for the cause.

According to the Washington Post, conservatives are still steady in their support of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts in spite of the fact -- horrors! -- that he did pro bono work for a gay activist group in their case against Colorado's odious anti-gay Amendment 2.

In their public statements, religious conservatives held their tongues. Tom Minnery, vice president of public policy at Focus on the Family, said the group views the revelation about Roberts's work for gay rights groups as "disappointing news."

"But we understand his role within his law firm, and it doesn't alter our view of him," Minnery said. "We believe he'll be a Supreme Court justice who will interpret the Constitution as it was written, not as he'd like it to be."

Aw, isn't that nice...even ignorant tightass bigots can be "understanding." But still, they're not taking any chances.

Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, said in an interview that he had "anticipated some bumps along the way" as conservatives learned more about Roberts. Echoing President Ronald Reagan's stance toward the Soviet Union, he said his group's position will be to "trust and verify."

"We trust that the president understands that his legacy in large part will be based on the Supreme Court and the nominations he makes," Perkins said. "And we trust the statements that John Roberts has made about his judicial philosophy and the opinions he has written. We will verify that through the confirmation hearings."

It's far too much to hope that Judge Roberts will turn out to be another Souter or Stevens, but it will be just so much fun to watch the conservatives fret about every jot and tittle that Roberts writes to make sure he doesn't stray from the reservation. Hey, I already know the guy's a conservative by my standards, so I'm over it -- but it's fun to watch the righties pretzel themselves to make sure he's one of them.

The Wall Street Journal (via Raw Story) thinks Bob Novak is owed an apology from "the liberal press pack."

I always find it amusing that the editorial board of the Journal, our 21st century version of Der Volkischer Beobachter, can find the energy and the ingenuity to defend the Draco Malfoys of the world like Karl Rove and Bob Novak.

Well, I suppose someone has to. After all, as Dick Cheney noted, maybe their mothers liked them, too. And they're still sucking up for the Pulitzer in fiction.

Peter Jennings died from lung cancer last night.

He was a class act, and in a world of blow-dried packaged news anchors who use words like "efforting" ("We're efforting to bring you the details as soon as they are available") he stood above the rest, and that includes people like Tom Brokaw with his painful speech pattern and Dan Rather with his folksiness-on-crack delivery. I never forgot that Mr. Jennings was a journalist -- a writer -- rather than just a talking head. There are too few of them still around.

So, as he used to say to his on-air colleagues when he signed off, "Many thanks."

Fred Grimm points the finger in his column in the Miami Herald.

These losses are on you.

Fourteen Marines died in Iraq last week when a roadside bomb exploded near their AAVP7A1 troop carrier. Designed to travel through surf, traverse, hit the beach and carry troops inland at maybe 20 mph, it was definitely not designed to withstand the most-effective weapon in the insurgency's arsenal.

And that's on you.

U.S. Marines, 500 miles from the Persian Gulf, are being bused around in lightly armored amphibious landing vehicles. And you won't get off your ass and raise hell.

These troops were among 34 killed by roadside bombs in the past two weeks. In May and June, 73 American soldiers died in Iraq from explosions near their inadequately armored troop carriers. Mostly Humvees. Some outfitted with Army-supplied bolt-on armor kits that don't protect the undercarriage. Others rigged by soldiers themselves with scrap metal and sandbag carpeting. ''Hillbilly armor,'' they call it.

Since May 2003, roadside bombs account for nearly half our dead and wounded in Iraq.

You knew this. Couldn't have missed it. So many stories about hillbilly armor in newspapers, TV news, on 60 Minutes, in news magazines. Surely one or two must have seeped through when you tuned in for the latest on Michael Jackson.

And you must have read local stories about young soldiers from Florida blown up in their Humvees: Pfc. Nathan Clemons, Sgt. Javier J. Garcia, Sgt. Carlos J. Gil, Lance Cpl. Marcus Mahdee, Spec. Robert Allen Wise, Michael Woodliff.

You probably remember the Tennessee National Guardsman who embarrassed Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld in December. He asked Rumsfeld why he hadn't procured armor to protect his troops.

The real answer: Because you didn't make him.

Read the rest. Please.

David Brooks is all chirpy today because he sees signs of moral self-repair going on here.

To put it in old-fashioned terms, America is becoming more virtuous. Americans today hurt each other less than they did 13 years ago. They are more likely to resist selfish and shortsighted impulses. They are leading more responsible, more organized lives. A result is an improvement in social order across a range of behaviors.

The decline in domestic violence is of a piece with the decline in violent crime over all. Violent crime over all is down by 55 percent since 1993 and violence by teenagers has dropped an astonishing 71 percent, according to the Department of Justice.

The number of drunken driving fatalities has declined by 38 percent since 1982, according to the Department of Transportation, even though the number of vehicle miles traveled is up 81 percent. The total consumption of hard liquor by Americans over that time has declined by over 30 percent.

Teenage pregnancy has declined by 28 percent since its peak in 1990. Teenage births are down significantly and, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the number of abortions performed in the country has also been declining since the early 1990's.

Fewer children are living in poverty, even allowing for an uptick during the last recession. There's even evidence that divorce rates are declining, albeit at a much more gradual pace. People with college degrees are seeing a sharp decline in divorce, especially if they were born after 1955.

I'd just like to point out that all of this moral uplifting and drop in crime and domestic violence took place in the 1990's -- when the dreadful awful amoral Bill Clinton was president. I'm sure that he's already trying to figure out a way to credit the Republicans for this. Of course, one other factor at the time was the booming economy that resulted in a huge budget surplus. Mr. Brooks knows that his buddies over at Focus on the Family will not admit that things are getting better because if they did, then they'd have nothing to rail against and they'd go broke.

If it works for the Republicans: the Democrats try for the long-term moneybags.

At least 80 wealthy liberals have pledged to contribute $1 million or more apiece to fund a network of think tanks and advocacy groups to compete with the potent conservative infrastructure built up over the past three decades.

The money will be channeled through a new partnership called the Democracy Alliance, which was founded last spring -- the latest in a series of liberal initiatives as the Democratic Party and its allies continue to struggle with the loss of the House and the Senate in 1994 and the presidency in 2000. Many influential Democratic contributors were left angry and despairing over the party's poor showing in last year's elections, and are looking for what they hope will be more effective ways to invest their support.

[...]

Alliance chairman Steven Gluckstern, a retired investment banker, said that President Bush's victory over Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) last year after millions of dollars had been poured into pro-Democratic "527" groups caused many contributors to think that a dramatically new approach is needed.

"It wasn't only the failure to win, it was the question 'What does it take to win?' " Gluckstern said. "Among the lessons learned was that to bring back the progressive majority in this country is not just a periodic election investment strategy."

The one thing that works against the Democrats is the basic structure of the party. In the last eighty years the Republicans have become the political front group for corporate America and the self-serving rich; after all, it was Calvin Coolidge who said, "The business of America is business." They've structured themselves as a branch of the corporation empire since the New Deal. Corporate structure is their way of life. The Democrats, on the other hand, have become a loose confederation of disparate interest groups who have come together on rare occasions to win an election as a response to the excesses of the Republicans. So this idea of a long-term alliance that lasts beyond one election cycle may take some getting used to.

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 7:13 AM  

August 6, 1945 - Hiroshima was obliterated by the first atomic bomb.

August 6, 1965 - President Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act.

There's a parallelism in these two events. Both brought unimaginable change to the societies that were effected by them. Both were seen by some as the only way of ending a struggle; one in a terrible flash and loss of hundreds of thousands of lives in a microsecond, the other in our nation finally putting into federal law the the death knell of the legacy of discrimination and inequality. There were those who argued that both methods were too extreme; the natural course of events would bring about the desired result without such radical devices. Both put the president at the time under tremendous pressure from the country, but both men -- Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson -- said afterwards that they did not regret the decisions they made.

My generation and all after will deal with the consequences of the events that happened on this day sixty and forty years ago. The charge to the generations that follow will be to do a better job than we did.

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 9:53 AM  

Elisabeth Bumiller provides a little background on the connection between Karl Rove and Bob Novak. It goes back to 1992 when Rove worked for Bush I and Novak took an interest in both the Bush family and the people around them

These hot months here will be remembered as the summer of the leak, a time when the political class obsessed on a central question: did Karl Rove, President Bush's powerful adviser, commit a crime when he spoke about a C.I.A. officer with the columnist Robert D. Novak?

Whatever a federal grand jury investigating the case decides, a small political subgroup is experiencing the odd sensation that this leak has sprung before. In 1992 in an incident well known in Texas, Mr. Rove was fired from the state campaign to re-elect the first President Bush on suspicions that Mr. Rove had leaked damaging information to Mr. Novak about Robert Mosbacher Jr., the campaign manager and the son of a former commerce secretary.

[...]

"They've known each for a long time, but they are not close friends," said a person who knows both men and who asked not to be named because of the investigation into a conversation by Mr. Novak and Mr. Rove in July 2003 about Ms. Wilson, part of a case that has put a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller, in jail for refusing to testify to the grand jury.

The two men share a love of history and policy, as well as reputations as aggressive partisans and hotheads.

People who have been officially briefed on the case have said Mr. Rove was the second of two senior administration officials cited by Mr. Novak in his column of July 14, 2003, that identified Ms. Wilson by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and said she was a C.I.A. operative.

The larger question has been whether Mr. Rove might have been using the columnist to confirm Ms. Plame's identity to punish or undermine her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV, who had accused the Bush administration of leading the nation to war with Iraq on false pretenses.

Human beings are creatures of habit, and once we form a routine, our instincts are to follow it, regardless of the changing circumstances around us. So it would be natural for the connection between Mr. Rove and Mr. Novak to remain as it was back in 1992. But this time the stakes are a little higher: rather than exact vengence for a lost business deal in a political campaign, it involves leaking classified information to exact vengence for calling into question the reasons for starting a war. But to Karl Rove, that doesn't matter. In all his dealings, he's never indicated that he cares about anything other than what's in it for him or his master, and in Bob Novak he's found a hook-up. They use each other to advance their own causes -- Rove's political agenda and Novak's tabloid reporting -- and then go on their way. That sounds like some action that Gannon/Guckert would have on his website.

As Tim Grieve points out in the War Room at Salon.com, we've got an awful lot of places and things named after Ronald Reagan; everything from high schools to highways. Here in Florida, the turnpike is the Ronald Reagan Turnpike and we just got a new school here in Miami-Dade County named after him. There's even a group going around trying to get have something in every county named for him. Now Rep. Henry Bonilla of Texas wants to rename 16th Avenue Street in Washington D.C. -- the street that intersects with Pennsylvania Avenue at the White House -- Ronald Reagan Boulevard. He says, "He deserves an honor in the nation's capital."

Uh...In Washington D.C. they have an airport and a huge government office building (ironic since Reagan campaigned on smaller government) already named for him. The Navy has an aircraft carrier. That's not enough?

Look, I'm all in favor of honoring a president's memory and legacy, but let's get real. After a certain point it goes from honor to idolatry, and we're verging on Kim Il Sung territory here. But some people won't stop, I guess, until we become Reaganistan...

Dr. James Dobson compares stem-cell research to Nazi experiments.

DOBSON: You know, the thing that means so much to me here on this this issue [embryonic stem cell research] is that people talk about the potential for good that can come from destroying these little embryos and how we might be able to solve the problem of juvenile diabetes. There's no indication yet that they're gonna do that, but people say that, or spinal cord injuries or such things. But I have to ask this question: In World War II, the Nazis experimented on human beings in horrible ways in the concentration camps, and I imagine, if you wanted to take the time to read about it, there would have been some discoveries there that benefited mankind. You know, if you take a utilitarian approach, that if something results in good, then it is good. But that's obviously not true. We condemn what the Nazis did because there are some things that we always could do but we haven't done, because science always has to be guided by ethics and by morality. And you remove ethics and morality, and you get what happened in Nazi Germany. That's why to Senator [Senate Majority Leader Bill] Frist [R-TN] and the others who are saying, "Look what may be accomplished." Yeah, but there's another issue, there's a higher order of ethics here.

Remember when the righties got all furious about Dick Durbin using the N-word to draw a comparison to the treatment of prisoners in Gitmo and how Durbin had to tearfully apologize? Well, so far the reaction from the righties on Dr. Dobson basically doing the same thing to stem-cell research is... [cue the crickets].

Why is it that the Republicans are so afraid of James Dobson?

By the way, does Dr. Dobson's comparison make Nancy Reagan, who supports the research, Eva Braun?

According to the Washington Post, the Bush administration is working out plans to ship up to 70% of the prisoners at Gitmo to places like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen.

The decision to move more than 20 percent of the detainees at Guantanamo to Afghanistan and to largely clear out the detention center at Bagram is part of a broader plan to significantly reduce the population of "enemy combatants" in U.S. custody. Senior U.S. officials said yesterday's agreement is the first major step toward whittling down the Guantanamo population to a core group of people the United States expects to hold indefinitely.

"This is not an effort to shut down Guantanamo. Rather, the arrangement we have reached with the government of Afghanistan is the latest step in what has long been our policy -- that we need to keep dangerous enemy combatants off the battlefield," Matthew Waxman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, said shortly after leaving Kabul with Prosper. "We, the U.S., don't want to be the world's jailer. We think a more prudent course is to shift that burden onto our coalition partners."

It's also a way to get them out of U.S. custody so that if there are any more questions about how the prisoners are questioned, it won't be us doing the interogation...

They also need to clear out some space in Gitmo to make room for the more restive and unpatriotic among us, like the obnoxious bloggers who question the president's motives for going to war, right, NTodd?

(PS: Triva test: anyone know where I got the title of this post from?)

The New York Times weighs in on the growth of blogging.

If the blogosphere continues to expand at this rate, every person who has Internet access will be a blogger before long, if not an actual reader of blogs. The conventional media - this very newspaper, for instance - have often discussed the growing impact of blogging on the coverage of news. Perhaps the strongest indicator of the importance of blogdom isn't those discussions themselves, but the extent to which media outlets are creating blogs - or bloglike manifestations - of their own.

[...]

It's natural enough to think of the growth of the blogosphere as a merely technical phenomenon. But it's also a profoundly human phenomenon, a way of expanding and, in some sense, reifying the ephemeral daily conversation that humans engage in. Every day the blogosphere captures a little more of the strange immediacy of the life that is passing before us. Think of it as the global thought bubble of a single voluble species.

Gee, I thought it was just so people could post pictures of their cats...and dogs.

I could swear I saw Bob Novak flip off the press before he told James Carville to go fuck himself, but it all may be bullshit. You know how those right-wingers are with their anger issues...

Meanwhile, let's see what The Liberal Coalition is taking time out to write about this week.

archy continues his discussion on intelligent design creationism.

Bark Bark Woof Woof looks at the try-outs for 2008.

blogAmY and David count down to the big day.

Join the bloggg blogathon for autism.

Chris gets groovy with the Monkees.

Collective Sigh helps a well-muscled ballplayer accept responsibility.

Leah at Corrente looks into one judge's journey through terror.

Dodecahedron on right-wing disconnect.

Dohiyi Mir on feeling secure.

Echidne takes a look at real family values.

firedoglake on the trouble with MSNBC.

First Draft says happy birthday to Helen Thomas.

The Fulcrum on the body count.

Changes are coming to The Gamer's Nook.

Happy Furry Puppy goes to a presidential press conference.

iddybud hears from a soldier just back from Iraq.

Left Is Right is glad the president is on vacation.

Liberty Street on Bush's support for his friends.

Make Me a Commentator has some advice for Ann Coulter.

Michael follows up on the Vanity Fair article on Denny Hastert.

Pen-Elayne is on light blogging patrol.

Rick on Frist's first step.

Rook's Rant has his own thoughts on I.D.

rubber hose on the complexities of language.

Everything you wanted to know about Diet Coke is at Science and Politics.

Scrutiny Hooligans on the high price of oil.

SoonerThought on violent outbursts.

Jeff at Speedkill is looking for book on Western philosophy. Any suggestions?

Steve Gilliard on spam and how it's not just an annoyance any more.

T. Rex on self-loathing conservatives.

The Invisible Library on the philosophy of Harry Potter.

The Countess on why insecure guys buy SUV's.

Wanda on the last throes.

WTF Is It Now on many things.

The Yellow Doggerel Democrat finds a supplier for Bob Novak.

Hey, I get some time off next week; just five days instead of five weeks, but then I'm not the Leader of the Free World.

Last week it was President Bush flipping off the press. Now Bob Novak comes up with more barnyard talk on CNN (clip via Media Matters). Crooks and Liars has it too.

Apparently all this talk about the CIA leak case is getting to the self-proclaimed Prince of Darkness.

Hey, I have no problem with using the full range of language; anyone who knows me knows I don't hold back. As Lawrence and Lee note in Inherit the Wind, "I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands." But I also don't go around tut-tutting others about their loose morals, or publish tomes like The Book of Virtues and use the royalties to pay off my gambling debts. But then, hypocrisy and irony are alien concepts to these people.

Update: Mr. Novak has been asked to "take some time off" from CNN. Maybe he should explore becoming the spokesman for John Bolton.

Supreme Court nominee John Roberts did pro bono work on behalf of gay-right advocates in the landmark 1996 Romer v. Evans, the Colorado "Amendment 2" case. From the Los Angeles Times:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. worked behind the scenes for gay rights activists, and his legal expertise helped them persuade the Supreme Court to issue a landmark 1996 ruling protecting people from discrimination because of their sexual orientation.

Then a lawyer specializing in appellate work, the conservative Roberts helped represent the gay rights activists as part of his law firm's pro bono work. He did not write the legal briefs or argue the case before the high court, but he was instrumental in reviewing filings and preparing oral arguments, according to several lawyers intimately involved in the case.

Gay rights activists at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Roberts' work on behalf of gay rights activists, whose cause is anathema to many conservatives, appears to illustrate his allegiance to the credo of the legal profession: to zealously represent the interests of the client, whoever it might be.

There is no other record of Roberts being involved in gay rights cases that would suggest his position on such issues. He has stressed, however, that a client's views are not necessarily shared by the lawyer who argues on his or her behalf.

The lawyer who asked for Roberts' help on the case, Walter A. Smith Jr., then head of the pro bono department at Hogan & Hartson, said Roberts didn't hesitate. "He said, 'Let's do it.' And it's illustrative of his open-mindedness, his fair-mindedness. He did a brilliant job."

I wonder what James Dobson and the rest of the nutsery thinks of this.

A friend sent this to me. Perhaps you read it when it was published nearly a year ago, but I think in light of the recent "last throes" in Iraq, it is important to consider these thoughts again, especially these paragraphs, which reflect back on us all.

The president we get is the country we get. With each president the nation is conformed spiritually. He is the artificer of our malleable national soul. He proposes not only the laws but the kinds of lawlessness that govern our lives and invoke our responses. The people he appoints are cast in his image. The trouble they get into and get us into, is his characteristic trouble.

Finally, the media amplify his character into our moral weather report. He becomes the face of our sky, the conditions that prevail. How can we sustain ourselves as the United States of America given the stupid and ineffective warmaking, the constitutionally insensitive lawgiving, and the monarchal economics of this president? He cannot mourn but is a figure of such moral vacancy as to make us mourn for ourselves.

E.L. Doctorow is the author of such works as The Book of Daniel, Ragtime, Billy Bathgate, and many others.

My friend and frequent commentor Brian is once again gainfully employed. I am sure Marty (his dog) will be glad to have the house all to herself again so she can catch up on her soaps.

Dave Barry chimes in on the early start of school here in Miami:

Among the children who will be trudging into Miami-Dade schools on Monday is my 5-year-old daughter, who enters kindergarten this year. When my wife told me the date our daughter would start school, my fifth question was: "Why?"

(My first four questions, in order, were: "Aug. 8?" "Did you say Aug. 8?" "You mean, like, the eighth day of AUGUST?" "Are they INSANE??")

I found out that the reason for the extremely early start of the school year is -- as you veteran parents already know -- the FCATs. FCAT is an acronym standing for "(Very bad word) Comprehensive Assessment Test."

These are standardized tests that are administered to all public-school students in Florida to confirm the sneaking suspicion among us older people that these kids today are just not as sharp as we were, dadgummit.

The FCATs have come to dominate public education in Florida. At one time, the purpose of the public schools, at least theoretically, was to educate children; now it is to produce higher FCAT scores, by whatever means necessary. If school officials believed that ingesting lizard meat improved FCAT performance, the cafeterias would be serving gecko nuggets.

[...]

Some other ways we might improve our FCAT performance are:

1. Expel students who are expected to do poorly on the FCATs. The school could send the parents of these students a letter that said: "We're sorry, but we do not believe your child is capable of producing the kind of FCAT scores that we need to maintain our average here at Coral Snail Elementary."

2. Import students to Florida from places that tend to produce high standardized-test scores, such as Japan.

3. Cheat. Hey, this is Miami-Dade County! If we can't cheat, what's the point of living here?

4. Instead of starting the school year insanely early, give the tests later.

Ha ha! I'm just kidding with that last one, of course. What a crazy idea! But I sure wish we could find a way to avoid the gradual elimination of our children's summers. I suspect many of you parents out there feel the same way.

I say we start a movement here to draft Dave Barry to run for the School Board.

Lynn Harris has a good article in Salon.com about the rise of evangelical business owners and their attempt to include salvation along with the rest of their products.

No statistics yet exist on the number or growth of these businesses, but there are certainly enough to support numerous regional and national Christian business directories. The largest such directory, the Shepherd's Guide, now covers over 100 cities (after launching with just Baltimore, Md., in 1979). "There seems to be more of a recognized movement of Christian businesses in the marketplace," confirms David Moyer, Shepherd's Guide vice president. "In years past you didn't so much make a statement of your religious life through your business. Today Christians -- and I believe rightfully so -- are making a commitment to say, 'I want to stand out for my belief.'" (According to Christian retail trade association CBA International, sales of specifically Christian products reached $4.34 billion in 2004, up by about 10 percent from 2000). The Christian Blue Pages has tripled the number of regions it serves; Chris Chandler, founder of the online business directory Christian eBuy.com, says that four years ago, he received one or two listing submissions a day. Now he gets 200. Why the increase? "Now people are seeing that they can be more open with their faith in the marketplace and the workplace. They're more emboldened," says Chandler. "I also think a lot of people feel that we're in the last days, and we've really got to share our faith."

These guys also probably figure that anyone who will buy the story about two naked people and a talking snake will fall for anything.

Is House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert on the take from the Turks? That's one of the more interesting points in this article in the September 2005 Vanity Fair by David Rose (WARNING: PDF, and not the highest quality). Sibel Edmonds was fired from the FBI for apparently blowing the whistle on a colleague who was involved with illicit activities with Turkish nationals that include accusations of bribery of some very powerful people.

Hat tip to Rachel Maddow.

Update: Josh Marshall at TPM is of the mind that this story has more mystery around it than substance. Having read and re-read the whole article, I agree that there's not a lot of direct evidence to the accusations. (But then, we've hired special prosecutors on flimsier stuff.) If it turns out to be nothing, then I'll follow up and say so. For now, I blog -- you decide.

From the New York Times:

GRAPEVINE, Tex., Aug. 3 - President Bush publicly overruled some of his top advisers on Wednesday in a debate about what to call the conflict with Islamic extremists, saying, "Make no mistake about it, we are at war."

In a speech here, Mr. Bush used the phrase "war on terror" no less than five times. Not once did he refer to the "global struggle against violent extremism," [GSAVE] the wording consciously adopted by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and other officials in recent weeks after internal deliberations about the best way to communicate how the United States views the challenge it is facing.

In recent public appearances, Mr. Rumsfeld and senior military officers have avoided formulations using the word "war," and some of Mr. Bush's top advisers have suggested that the administration wanted to jettison what had been its semiofficial wording of choice, "the global war on terror." [GWOT]

In an interview last week about the new wording, Stephen J. Hadley, Mr. Bush's national security adviser, said that the conflict was "more than just a military war on terror" and that the United States needed to counter "the gloomy vision" of the extremists and "offer a positive alternative."

But administration officials became concerned when some news reports linked the change in language to signals of a shift in policy. At the same time, Mr. Bush, by some accounts, told aides that he was not happy with the new phrasing, a change of tone from the wording he had consistently used since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

It is not clear whether the new language embraced by other administration officials was adopted without Mr. Bush's approval or whether he reversed himself after the change was made. Either way, he planted himself on Wednesday firmly on the side of framing the conflict primarily in military terms and appeared intent on emphasizing that there had been no change in American policy.

You can call it whatever you want, but it's still a clusterfuck.

Rep. Katherine Harris (R-FL) now has a new nemesis: Photoshop.

During the presidential election recount of 2000, Florida was in a white-hot spotlight, focused on a woman not accustomed to national publicity - then-Secretary of State Katherine Harris.

Harris' decision against a ballot recount made her a hero to Republicans and anathema to Democrats. She also was bashed for something else: her makeup.

One Democratic commentator compared her to Cruella DeVil of the Disney movie "101 Dalmatians." Comic Jay Leno said a cold snap made Florida so chilly Harris "put on a third layer of makeup."

On Monday, on a conservative radio talk show, Harris, now a congresswoman from Longboat Key running for the U.S. Senate, hit back, blaming newspapers for the criticism and charging that some - without saying which - altered her photographs.

"I'm actually very sensitive about those things, and it's personally painful," Harris said when host Sean Hannity asked about her image problems from 2000.

"But they're outrageously false, No. 1, and No. 2, you know, whenever they made fun of my makeup, it was because the newspapers colorized my photograph," Harris said.

She didn't explain what she meant by "colorized."

Asked Tuesday to point to an altered photograph, Harris and her staff could not.

[...]

Most newspapers, including the [Tampa] Tribune, forbid changing photographic images.

"Manipulating an image in any form is not allowed" by The Associated Press, which distributes photos to newspapers nationwide, said David Ake, AP national deputy photography director. "We're pretty adamant about that. We have terminated people for it."

Ake was AP photo editor in Florida during the 2000 recount, "and I can tell you we did no manipulation whatever," he said.

Some political experts say Harris' charge makes little sense because most Americans got their visual image of Harris from television.

At least two Harris news conferences in November 2000, detailing her decision to enforce a deadline and forbid recount results, got national TV coverage.

"Of course it wasn't newspapers, it was television," said Larry Sabato, a political scientist at the University of Virginia. "I can remember watching her and thinking she learned all the wrong makeup lessons from Al Gore in the debates."

She actually may not be as far out as she claims; newspapers can distort your image. If you look at her full-length picture in the paper, she's only three inches tall.

Some thoughts on gay literature over at Bobby Cramer.

There's nothing more refreshing than a big blast of hypocrisy from one of the world's great religions to get your day off to a great start, so how about this?

In 1994, then-Archbishop of Portland William Levada offered a simple answer for why the archdiocese shouldn't have been ordered to pay the costs of raising a child fathered by a church worker at a Portland, Ore., parish.

In her relationship with Arturo Uribe, then a seminarian and now a Whittier priest, the child's mother had engaged "in unprotected intercourse … when [she] should have known that could result in pregnancy," the church maintained in its answer to the lawsuit.

The legal proceeding got little attention at the time. And the fact that the church — which considers birth control a sin — seemed to be arguing that the woman should have protected herself from pregnancy provoked no comment. Until last month.

That's when Stephanie Collopy went back into court asking for additional child support. A Times article reported the church's earlier response. Now liberal and conservative Catholics around the country are decrying the archdiocese's legal strategy, saying it was counter to church teaching.

"On the face of it, [the argument] is simply appalling," said Michael Novak, a conservative Catholic theologian and author based in Washington, D.C.

That the "unprotected intercourse" argument was offered in Levada's name made it especially shocking to some Catholics. The former archbishop is now chief guardian of Catholic doctrine worldwide. The archbishop's new post as prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was last held by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger — now Pope Benedict XVI.

William Donohue, president of the conservative Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights based in New York, said the legal language was "simply code for, 'What's wrong with you, honey, aren't you smart enough to make sure condoms were used?' "

And that, he notes, is completely counter to the church's teachings, which hold that using contraceptives is "intrinsically evil."

Frances Kissling, president of Catholics for a Free Choice, a group that supports abortion rights, said Levada's defense was an example of how, "if something will cost the bishops money, they will use any argument whatsoever — like any other corporate entity — that will get them off the hook. It's a disgrace."

It takes balls for the Catholic Church to come up with an argument like that.

*Via InterTran: "It is your baby now." (The only Latin I know is Xavier Cugat.)

From CNN comes a headline that's a little more like something out of a supermarket tabloid:

Brain-dead woman gives birth to baby girl

RICHMOND, Virginia (AP) -- A brain-dead pregnant woman who has been kept on life support for nearly three months to give her fetus more time to develop gave birth to a baby girl Tuesday, the woman's brother-in-law said.

There were no complications during delivery and the baby "is doing well," Justin Torres wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

The baby, Susan Anne Catherine Torres, weighs one pound 13 ounces and is 13 1/2 inches long, he said.

The infant was delivered via caesarean section, the hospital said.

Susan Torres, a 26-year-old researcher at the National Institutes of Health, lost consciousness from a stroke May 7 after aggressive melanoma spread to her brain.

Her husband, Jason Torres, said doctors told him his wife's brain functions had stopped.

Jason Torres quit his job to be by his wife's side, and last month her fetus passed the 24th week of development -- the earliest point at which doctors felt the baby would have a reasonable chance to survive, the brother-in-law said.

My heart goes out to the family and my best wishes to the little girl, and I'm also glad that the family was able to make these heart-wrenching decisions without the interference of the United States Congress.

But now that Ms. Torres has fulfilled her obligation by bearing this child to the 24th week, what will happen to her?

Pat Robertson is famous for praying away hurricanes, for fire and brimestone to hit Orlando because Disney World refuses to discriminate against gays, and for any number of other odd things like extra whipped cream on his jello. Well, here's his latest.

In a televised prayer on Tuesday for Judge Roberts's confirmation [...] the television evangelist Pat Robertson asked his viewers to pray: "Take control, Lord! We ask for additional vacancies on the court." (A "prayer point" on the Web site for Mr. Robertson's "Supreme Court Freedom Project" includes "additional vacancies" as well.)

The Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the prayer "ghoulish," saying, "The only way people leave the court these days is through death or infirmity."

But a spokeswoman for Mr. Robertson said he was praying only for retirements, not deaths, noting that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had retired after his prayer was first posted.

(Yes, I'm sure the Robertson website is first on Justice O'Connor's daily-read list.)

Okay, all you calm, cool, considerate and conservative Republicans: this baby is all yours.

Paul Hackett lost in the race in the Ohio 2nd, but given the history of the district and the fact that John Kerry lost there by 30 points last year, the 52-48% margin sends a message to both parties: don't take anything for granted.

From the Toledo Blade:

A second grand jury is investigating the expanding state scandal involving Tom Noe and his failed $50 million rare-coin funds.

Judge Charles Wittenberg of Lucas County Common Pleas Court confirmed that a special grand jury met for the first time yesterday and is expected to meet monthly into November.

He declined to say why the grand jury is meeting, but sources told The Blade yesterday that it will not only focus on Mr. Noe but also will look at “the broader issues” surrounding problems at the Ohio Bureau of Workers’ Compensation.

Since 1998, the bureau has invested $50 million in two rare-coin funds that Mr. Noe set up, plus $5.4 million in alleged profits that bureau officials allowed Mr. Noe to reinvest in the funds in February.

Bureau officials were on the verge of investing an additional $25 million with Mr. Noe until The Blade began writing about problems with his coin funds in early April.

In late May, state officials shut down the Noe funds. They confiscated Mr. Noe’s inventory and records after his lawyers revealed that up to $13 million from the funds was unaccounted for.

And the hits just keep on coming.

From the Miami Herald:

President Bush waded into the debate over evolution and "intelligent design" Monday, saying schools should teach both theories on the creation and complexity of life.

In a wide-ranging question-and-answer session with a small group of reporters, Bush essentially endorsed efforts by Christian conservatives to give intelligent design equal standing with the theory of evolution in the nation's schools.

Why stop there? What about teaching the rest of the wide world of creation mythology? What about Norse gods and the Ring cycle? What about the Shinto? What about Hindu stories? What about the Silmarillion? What about the ancient astronauts? Intelligent design is just about as plausible and provable as any of those stories, and there are any number of other stories that explain the origin of life. They're all wonderful stories, filled with fascinating characters and deep insight to the human need to find out who we are and where we come from. But none of it is science, and teaching "intelligent design" on the same level as Darwin is the same as including alchemy -- the medieval belief that lead could be turned into gold -- in a chemistry class.

This last week we've had a few possible 2008 Republican presidential candidates trot out on stage and try out some opening lines. First there was Sen. Bill Frist making his views known on stem cell research. Then it was New York Gov. George Pataki announcing that he won't run for re-election. Now Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been vetoing reproductive-rights legislation and making noises like he's really a conservative, despite running as a moderate in 2002.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that not one of these three guys will be the Republican nominee in 2008. The reason is very simple. They have all, in their own way, not done enough to please the far right of the Republican party or they have in some way betrayed them. No serious candidate will get out of the primaries without having the Good Housekeeping seal of approval from James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, and the rest of the schutzstaffen. Senator Frist yielded to overwhelming scientific evidence that stem-cell research can actually save lives and cure diseases. Governor Pataki has been pro-choice for his entire term and only made a nodding concession to the right-to-lifers with his veto of OTC morning-after medication because it could be available to minors. And now Gov. Romney is trying to get into the good graces of the nutsery with his tough-acting stand on morning-after pills in Massachusetts and other feints to the right; not an easy act to pull off in a state where 14% of the voters are registered Republicans. The righties are highly suspicious of any Republican from Massachusetts -- they figure he's gotta have some liberal taint somewhere -- and it was on Romney's watch that the state became the first to allow gay marriage.

It's hard to imagine the Republicans turning down someone as squeaky-clean as Romney, the political version of Donny Osmond, but the right wing is very hard to please -- you really have to suck down the Kool-Aid to get in good with the presumptive power-brokers over there. Now that their best bet, Rick Santorum, has ruled himself out (his Ralph Kramden-like "hamana-hamana" performance on ABC this last Sunday would have been enough to kill the chances of any another man), they're going to have to really scrounge around to find someone who will be able to make it through the primaries with his right-wing credentials intact and still come up with enough moderate positions to draw in the independent votes that will be needed to win in November

Assuming they'd want to -- and that's a big assumption -- the odds that the Republicans will find an acceptable moderate candidate and position him to win are pretty long. The Republicans haven't run a moderate candidate since Jerry Ford, and he was challenged by Reagan. Judging by recent polls, American voters are not too impressed by the brand of conservativism of George W. Bush -- and there are those who say that Bush is not really a conservative. (Hey, don't take my word for it; see what a Reaganite Republican thinks of him.) By 2008 the country may be ready for a very big change.

So if Frist, Pataki, and Romney don't make the cut, who's next?

This afternoon I walked up to the store -- five blocks -- to exchange some contact lens solution. On the way I saw a Honda Civic run a stop sign and nearly t-bone an SUV, a Mercedes pull out of a parking garage and bump the rear end of the car in front while they waited for an opening in traffic, and I nearly got run over by a PT Cruiser as it pulled into a parking lot.

Guess what all three incidents had in common? Go on -- guess. Okay, time's up. All three drivers were talking on cell phones.

It's a miracle I get home every night in one piece.

It's not about who leaked sensitive information to the press about a covert CIA operative for political revenge. It's all about me.

*I know -- Shorter Bob Novak is redundant.

The Washington Post has been digging through the files of Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts and it turns out that he's a conservative. Gee, ya think?

He wrote vigorous defenses, for example, of the [Reagan] administration's version of a voting rights bill, opposed by Congress, that would have narrowed the reach of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He challenged arguments by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in favor of busing and affirmative action. He described a Supreme Court decision broadening the rights of individuals to sue states for civil rights violations as causing "damage" to administration policies, and he urged that legislation be drafted to reverse it. And he wrote a memo arguing that it was constitutionally acceptable for Congress to strip the Supreme Court of its ability to hear broad classes of civil rights cases.

[...]

Colleagues say Roberts, then a recent Harvard Law School graduate and clerk to Supreme Court Justice William H. Rehnquist, was an ideologically close fit with the other special assistants to [Attorny General William French] Smith and his top appointees. The special assistants were mostly white males in their twenties who ate lunch almost daily with Smith in his private dining room and then worked late into the night to advance the administration's views.

"We were there to reverse course from the policies of the Carter administration, certainly," said Charles J. Cooper, who worked closely with Roberts while serving as a special assistant and later as deputy to the assistant attorney general for civil rights. "Everybody was there with similar goals and intentions."

What comes to mind in reading this article is that old brickbat "limousine liberals." The right wing used to throw that label at people like Teddy Kennedy -- the rich liberals who made such a big deal about poor people, yet sent their kids to private schools, summered in Nantucket, and only cared about minorities when they couldn't find a good housekeeper. They had no real contact with them, and the only reason they passed things like the Voting Rights Act was so that they could get them to vote for them. Ironically, it appears that the young conservative lawyers of the class that John Roberts comes from are of the same ilk: they have no real connection with the world outside of their own circle and they see nothing wrong with molding the world to their vision of Brooks Brothers and Charles Emerson Winchester III. After all, it is the rich who make the rules. Unfortunately, it's that kind of thinking that kept unequal treatment of minorities and women a part of our society for too long a time.

Time magazine is reporting that Karl Rove may have learned who Valerie Plame Wilson was from within the administration.

The problem with that is that apparently Mr. Rove and his lawyers have been telling Patrick Fitzgerald and the grand jury that he heard about it from journalists who were investigating the story and that he just passed on rumors. He's not sure who he heard it from, either...could have been Judith Miller, could have been Bob Novak, could have been Teddy the Wonder Lizard.

The problem with bullshitting a prosecutor is that if you get caught, they charge you with perjury. A grand jury isn't the White House press corps. So Karl's biggest worry may not be that he committed a felony by revealing a covert agent to a newspaper reporter to exact revenge for someone writing a story that called into question our motives and evidence for attacking another country...it's that he couldn't remember the lie he made up to cover for the big lie in the first place.

One of the things we're fighting for in the global war on terror struggle against violent extremism (GSAVE) is the basic rule of law and the idea that every person accused of a crime would be granted a fair trail based on the evidence. It's enshrined in our Constitution and it's part of what we're supposed to be bringing to the rest of the world by setting a fine example of democracy and freedom. So it would seem that if you're going to put people on trial -- especially those who have been accused of crimes in the GSAVE -- they would be shown that our way of justice is better than theirs and that no matter what they've done we will grant them a fair trial.

Not so fast.

From the New York Times:

As the Pentagon was making its final preparations to begin war crimes trials against four detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, two senior prosecutors complained in confidential messages last year that the trial system had been secretly arranged to improve the chance of conviction and to deprive defendants of material that could prove their innocence.

The electronic messages, obtained by The New York Times, reveal a bitter dispute within the military legal community over the fairness of the system at a time when the Bush administration and the Pentagon were eager to have the military commissions, the first for the United States since the aftermath of World War II, be seen as just at home and abroad.

During the same time period, military defense lawyers were publicly criticizing the system, but senior officials dismissed their complaints and said they were contrived as part of the efforts to help their clients.

The defense lawyers' complaints and those of outside groups like the American Bar Association were, it is now clear, simultaneously being echoed in confidential messages by the two high-ranking prosecutors whose cases would, if anything, benefit from any slanting of the process.

In a separate e-mail message, the chief prosecutor flatly rejected the accusations by his subordinates. And a military review supported him.

[...]

Colonel Borch, who has since retired from the military, sent his own e-mail message to Captain Carr and Major Preston on March 15, 2004, with copies to several other members of the prosecution team the same day, outlining his response.

In his message, Colonel Borch said he had great respect and admiration for Captain Carr and Major Preston. But their accusations, he said, were "monstrous lies." He did not, however, address any specifics, like stacking the panel.

"I am convinced to the depth of my soul that all of us on the prosecution team are truly dedicated to the mission of the office of military commissions," he wrote, "and that no one on the team has anything but the highest ethical principles."

It would seem that the biggest fear the government has is that some of the people they're holding in Gitmo are innocent. That wouldn't do. After all, we caught them. They must have been up to no good. "Well, they were terrorists! Giving them a fair trial is too good for them! Don't coddle them! Take them out and hang them!" Okay, go back and read the first paragraph. We're supposed to be the role model for freedom and democracy around the world, according to -- gasp! -- President Bush.

Rigged trials and secret sealed evidence is the stuff of dictatorships, and if that's what comes out of this GSAVE, we're no better than the enemy we're fighting.