Bark Bark Woof Woof

A little Thursday-morning quarterbacking on Ernesto.

At one point, the forecast pointed toward Texas or Louisiana. Ernesto flopped ashore on Plantation Key.

For a while, it was supposed to arrive as a Category 1 hurricane. It barely made it as a tropical storm.

It was expected to produce flooding rain. It delivered less rain than a thunderstorm.

Day after day, Ernesto disobeyed forecasts issued by the National Hurricane Center. So . . . what happened?

In a nutshell: When it came to Ernesto, forecasters at the hurricane center -- and nearly everywhere else -- crashed into the limits of technology and scientific knowledge.

''Until the science gets better, we have to deal with some uncertainty in these forecasts,'' said Craig Fugate, the state's longtime director of emergency management.

Apparently some of the TV stations got angry phone calls from viewers for the breathless coverage they gave Ernesto on Tuesday and Wednesday -- and pre-empting the soaps until 2 AM Thursday morning (here's a tip, folks...VCR or TiVo).

I'd rather be safe than sorry, and if it means I have to hit the Mute button when Lonny Quinn and Bob Mayer O.D. on vamping blather over at Channel 6, so be it. Next time we may not be so lucky.

From the Sun-Sentinel:

RadioShack Corp. notified about 400 workers by e-mail that they were being dismissed immediately as part of planned job cuts.

Employees at the Fort Worth headquarters got messages Tuesday morning saying: "The work force reduction notification is currently in progress. Unfortunately your position is one that has been eliminated."

Company officials had told employees in a series of meetings that layoff notices would be delivered electronically, spokeswoman Kay Jackson said. She said employees were invited to ask questions before Tuesday's notification on a company intranet site.

Derrick D'Souza, a management professor at the University of North Texas, said he had never heard of such a large number of terminated employees being notified electronically. He said it could be seen as dehumanizing to employees.

"If I put myself in their shoes, I'd say, 'Didn't they have a few minutes to tell me?'" D'Souza said.

I wouldn't be surprised if more than one of those uninstalled Radio Shack employees responded by immediately re-formatting the hard drive on every computer within reach.

According to David Brooks, the Plame Leak Scandal was all just a game of Who's In and Who's Out in Washington.

[Y]ou must always remember that it’s better to be One of Us than One of Them. Washington attracts a community of smart public-service-oriented people. This permanent community has its own set of mores. It’s important to be politically temperate. It’s important, even though you supported the Iraq war in 2003, to act as if you opposed it all along. Above all one must engage in the off-the-record gossip and background leaking that important people use to spin each other while pretending they are not spinning.

Members of the Washington community, like members of all decent communities, protect one another. Richard Armitage is a member of this community. Karl Rove is not. When a scandal hits One of Us, it is like Pepto-Bismol on an upset stomach. When a scandal hits One of Them, it’s like a match on gasoline.

I hope, dear reader, I have explained some of the rituals of our political culture. And I hope you will not judge us harshly. We only destroy those who are unfashionable.

So it doesn't really matter whether or not classified information was leaked from the White House to the press in order to destroy the reputation and career of a CIA agent because her husband had the temerity to embarrass the president (after all, he's perfectly capable of doing a pretty good job of it on his own). No, it's just one big parlor game to them.

The administration's newest line of attack for the mid-term election is up and running.

Bush suggested last week that Democrats are promising voters to block additional money for continuing the war. Vice President Cheney this week said critics "claim retreat from Iraq would satisfy the appetite of the terrorists and get them to leave us alone." And Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, citing passivity toward Nazi Germany before World War II, said that "many have still not learned history's lessons" and "believe that somehow vicious extremists can be appeased."

Gee, that sounds like a real winner; scaring up Neville Chamberlain, Munich, and grainy film images of storm troopers marching through Prague are guaranteed to make the evening news, Godwin's Law notwithstanding. The problem with that, though, is no one is suggested that we "appease" terrorists or cut off funding, and there are several prominent Republicans who are now advocating a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Pressed to support these allegations, the White House yesterday could cite no major Democrat who has proposed cutting off funds or suggested that withdrawing from Iraq would persuade terrorists to leave Americans alone. But White House and Republican officials said those are logical interpretations of the most common Democratic position favoring a timetable for withdrawing troops from Iraq.

[...]

Democrats contended that the statements went too far. "Maybe there are some people in America who do not want to fight the war on terror, but I do not know them," Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, said yesterday. "We Democrats want to fight a very strong war on terror. No one has talked about appeasement."

The White House strategy of equating Democratic dissent with defeatism worked during the 2002 and 2004 elections, but it could prove more difficult this time. Some Republicans, such as Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.), line up with Democrats in seeking a timetable for a withdrawal from Iraq. When Bush and his allies accuse those favoring such a timetable of "self-defeating pessimism," as Cheney put it this week, they risk spraying friendly fire on some of their own candidates.

So basically the White House strategy is to make shit up about their opponents and flail around like whirling dervishes, not really caring who they hit.

Do we detect the distinctive odor of desperation?

Keith Olbermann lets Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld have it. Watch it here.

Chapter 37 of Small Town Boys has been posted at Bobby Cramer and mirrored at The Practical Press.

Sen. George Allen says the "macaca" incident was an "mistake" and he truly doesn't have a racist bone in his body. So let's see how he explains this tidbit of news from Max Blumenthal in The Nation.

Only a decade ago, as governor of Virginia, Allen personally initiated an association with the Council of Conservative Citizens, the successor organization to the segregationist White Citizens Council and among the largest white supremacist groups.

In 1996, when Governor Allen entered the Washington Hilton Hotel to attend the Conservative Political Action Conference, an annual gathering of conservative movement organizations, he strode to a booth at the entrance of the exhibition hall festooned with two large Confederate flags--a booth operated by the Council of Conservative Citizens (CCC), at the time a co-sponsor of CPAC. After speaking with CCC founder and former White Citizens Council organizer Gordon Lee Baum and two of his cohorts, Allen suggested that they pose for a photograph with then-National Rifle Association spokesman and actor Charlton Heston. The photo appeared in the Summer 1996 issue of the CCC's newsletter, the Citizens Informer.

[...]

Descended from the White Citizens' Councils that battled integration in the Jim Crow South, the CCC is designated a "hate group" by the Southern Poverty Law Center. In its "Statement of Principles," the CCC declares, "We also oppose all efforts to mix the races of mankind, to promote non-white races over the European-American people through so-called "affirmative action" and similar measures, to destroy or denigrate the European-American heritage, including the heritage of the Southern people, and to force the integration of the races."

The CCC has hosted several conservative Republican legislators at its conferences, including former Representative Bob Barr of Georgia and Senator Trent Lott of Mississippi. But mostly it has been a source of embarrassment to Republicans hoping to move their party beyond its race-baiting image. Former Reagan speechwriter and conservative pundit Peggy Noonan pithily declared that anyone involved with the CCC "does not deserve to be in a leadership position in America."

Asked whether Allen supports or deplores the CCC, John Reid, his communications director pleaded ignorance. "I am unaware of the group you mention or their agenda and because we have no record of the Senator having involvement with them I cannot offer you any opinion on them," Reid told me in an e-mail response.

So while no one has ever seen George Allen in a KKK hood or accused him of burning a cross on someone's lawn, I get the feeling that if he saw one he would probably stop by and toast a few marshmallows...

(HT to AMERICAblog.)

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY), head of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, is so revved up about the Democrats' chances in November that he's holding the Chuck Schumer Cliche Festival. Dana Milbank reports in the Washington Post:

To judge from Schumer's presentation, the Democrats will achieve this extraordinary triumph by employing an extended series of mixed metaphors. Schumer himself may have set a record in that department yesterday as he painted the electoral landscape:

"This administration is shrugging its shoulders. . . . It's like 'The Wizard of Oz' -- it showed the man behind the screen. . . . You know which way the winds are blowing. . . . There have been very few bumps in the road. . . . The wind continues to stay at our backs. . . . The idea that there should be no check and balance, no congressional oversight, just isn't flying. They want to try to bring back the 2004 playbook. . . . They're trying to find a new rabbit to pull out of the hat, but so far they've gone back to the old chestnuts."

Chestnuts? In the same hat with rabbits? With the wind at their back on a bumpy road?

I realize that it's Schumer's job as head of the DSCC to paint a rosy picture of the Democrats' chances and that his counterpart on the GOP side is minimizing their forthcoming defeats. As Glenn Greenwald noted, the Republicans are masters making a disaster for the GOP into something that sounds good for them; I swear I once heard Bob Novak claim that if the Democrats beat the crap out of the Republicans and won back the majority in the House and the Senate, it would be "bad news" for the Democrats based on the theory that they would actually have to lead rather than just complain about not being in power. Yeah, that's the ticket, Bob.

Anyway, while it may be Chuck Schumer's job to talk up every race as a plus for the Democrats, it's also a given that it would truly be a stunning upset if the Democrats actually won every race and regained the majority in both the House and the Senate. The reality it doesn't matter if the glass is half-full or half-empty; all politics is local, and you can take that to the bank. (Agh! Stop me before I metaphor again!)

Tropical Storm Ernesto has come and gone...and all we have to show for it is wet streets -- barely half an inch of rain -- and a few gusts of wind that rattled my neighbor's wind chimes. The heaviest rains came around 6:00 p.m. yesterday, and by the time it had passed, the weather folk on the TV were saying that was it. All the network affiliates were back to regular programming by 8, and I was watching Casablanca on TCM. I've been through summer thunderstorms that packed more punch.

It's far better to be over-prepared than not, and I think the lessons we learned from the last couple of years have taken hold; people are ready for these things now, especially after a long period of time when, other than Andrew in 1992, South Florida didn't have much in the way of hurricane activity. Not that I like it, but I'm glad I'm prepared and have been through the preparation, the waiting, and now the aftermath, such as it is with this weak little rain event.

And I still get the whole day off. I guess I can clean the house.

The BBC News World Have Your Say picked up my post Remembering Katrina.

How cool is that?

About an hour ago we got our first rain showers from Ernesto. And about an hour ago I decided to plug in my jump drive to back up my computer just in case. [phfft] Nothing except an error message: "G:\ drive inaccessible." I made a quick call to SanDisk, got on with technical support, and after a couple of tests, they adjudged that it was fried. Who knows why. But I still had my receipt from Office Max where I bought it ten days ago, so I hopped in the car and made it over to the store as they were beginning to put up the hurricane shutters. Office Max exchanged it with a smile and a shrug -- "Ai, these things happen " -- and I picked up two four-packs of D-cells just in case. I made it home, did the back-up with no trouble, and now I'm all set.

The radar is showing the first big feeder bands approaching the Keys, and we're getting some preliminary gusts. NBC6's Jackie Nespral (remember her from the Today show?) is saying the real storm should start around five with the worst hitting around 8 or so and lasting through the night. The projected track has shifted a bit to the west, but we're still supposed to get five to ten inches of rain and winds up to 60 mph.

I pigged out at lunch on perishable food; hey, if the power goes out, it will all have to be chucked, so what the hell.

Oh, by the way, NBC6 came up with a novel suggestion for making sure you had telephone communications if the power goes out. They touted a new kind of phone, which they call a "hurricane phone." Instead of the cordless models so popular today, this one has a cord from the receiver to the base, and a wire from the base to the wall outlet. What a great idea! And you can get them from BellSouth. Or, if you're like me, you can use one like this:

I'm ready for anything.

Steve Bates, The Yellow Doggerel Democrat, has a new address for his eponymous blog. Adjust your blogroll accordingly.

E.J. Dionne notes that quite a few Republicans are beginning to distance themselves from the stay-the-course mantra in Iraq.

August 2006 will be remembered as a watershed in the politics of Iraq. It is the month in which a majority of Americans told pollsters that the struggle for Iraq was not connected to the larger war on terrorism. They thus renounced a proposition the administration has pushed relentlessly since it began making the case four years ago to invade Iraq.

That poll finding, from a New York Times-CBS News survey, came to life on the campaign trail when Rep. Chris Shays (R-Conn.), one of the most articulate supporters of the war, announced last Thursday that he favored a time frame for withdrawing troops.

[...]

Nearly as significant as the new support for troop withdrawals is the effort of many Republicans to criticize President Bush without taking a firm stand on when the troops should come home.

Rep. Mike Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), facing a challenge from Democrat Patrick Murphy, an Iraq war veteran, took a page from former president Bill Clinton's playbook by triangulating between Murphy and the president. A Fitzpatrick mailing sent earlier this month said that Fitzpatrick favored a "better, smarter plan in Iraq" that "says NO to both extremes: No to President Bush's 'stay the course' strategy . . . and no to Patrick Murphy's 'cut and run' approach."

Notice: A Republican is suggesting that Bush's Iraq policy is extreme. That would not have happened in 2004.

In doing so, these Republicans run the risk of incurring the wrath of Rove, but I'm guessing that when it's your job on the line and Bush is a lame duck, Karl Rove and his threats of revenge don't carry a whole lot of weight, especially when it's clear that the majority of Americans are finally snapping to the fact that they got bamboozled into the war in the first place.

By the way, it's interesting to note that none of these Republicans are offering a concise plan for getting us out of Iraq, which has been the GOP's biggest PR bludgeon against the Democrats. This in spite of the fact that since it was the Bushies who got us into the war in the first place, it shouldn't be the Democrats' responsibility to get us out -- unless they're counting on the next president to be a Democrat.

5:00 a.m. 08-29-06

Everything's ready. The TV stations are on full storm coverage for Ernesto, and they're running clips of the usual preparation stories; cars lined up at gas stations, people pushing shopping carts loaded with bottled water and Pampers through the supermarkets, guys in wife-beaters putting up plywood, officials from Florida Power and Light saying they're ready, all the while running crawls of school closures, and off in one corner, the radar loop of the storm's progress across Cuba.

Right now the weather's calm, and it's pretty warm for 6:00 a.m. -- 82 F. We have, of course, a Tropical Storm warning with a Hurricane Watch inland. It's supposed to get nasty tonight with rain bands and winds up to 45 mph.

But for now, it's quiet and the only difference between this and any other day is that I'm at home on a Tuesday morning.

Update: Here are a couple of pictures of the clouds that are preceding the arrival of Ernesto:

Around 7:00 a.m.

It's official:

Miami-Dade County Public Schools employees should not report to work on Tuesday, August 29 and Wednesday, August 30, unless directed otherwise by a supervisor.

My supervisor handed out plastic trash bags to cover the computers and told us to unplug them. My office is so far inside the building and on the second floor that if water got in or up that far, a wet computer would be the least of our worries, but I took her advice nevertheless.

At the home front, I'm all set. The lawn furniture is stacked against the house and the orchid is inside. The flashlight works, as does my 1976 Panasonic radio, I have enough canned food to last a couple of weeks, enough bottled water to last for a couple of weeks, too. I that's how I made it through Katrina, Rita, and Wilma last year, and this time it looks like it's not going to get above tropical storm strength.

The latest tracking has it passing pretty much directly over Miami before heading out to sea near Cape Canaveral.

Rest assured this will change in the next twenty-four hours, but it looks like we're in for a wet couple of days.

From KUSA TV in Denver:

KUSA - 9NEWS has confirmed from two sources that the DNA taken from John Mark Karr does not match the DNA samples taken from the crime scene in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case.

9NEWS has also confirmed from different sources that no charges will be filed against Karr in connection with the Ramsey case by the Boulder County District Attorney's office.

Some people will do anything to get an upgrade to business class on an 15-hour intercontinental airline flight.

The current track has it heading this way.

I have everything I had last year for Katrina, Rita, and Wilma: lots of canned food and bottled water and batteries in the flashlight and radio. The laptop is charged, I have a phone cord for dial-up access, and books to read.

I've also got, as Col. Sherman Potter noted, the requisite queasy feeling in my gizzard. People in the office are already taking bets on whether we'll come in to work tomorrow or Wednesday.

Stay tuned.

Some random thoughts as we mark Hurricane Katrina...

The newspapers, websites, and TV are full of Katrina stories today; how far we've come -- or haven't -- in a year. We're seeing pictures of the homes still gutted, the new levees, hearing the heartfelt stories of searches for people still listed as missing, and the those of people who have made it back and have gotten on with their lives. We listen to the up-close and personal stories, shake our heads, be glad it wasn't us, and get on with the latest update on JonBenet.

As for the people in authority at the time and now, it's their chance to see how the first anniversary of Katrina can be used for their agenda. President Bush will spend a couple of days on the Gulf Coast, look at some new casinos, slap a few backs, promise more help, and then go back to doing whatever it is he does while Karl Rove tries to figure out a way to link the hurricane to terrorism, Iraq, gay marriage, the destruction of stem-cells, and the treasonous New York Times. Mayor Nagin will back water on his hole in the ground comment, and politicians will chastise him for being insensitive to New York as they prepare to mark the fifth annivesary of 9/11 and see how they can fit that into their own agenda of self-promotion.

Whatever the reasons are, the fact that it is a year later and there are still places in the Lower Ninth Ward that look as bad as they did a year ago, there are still people waiting to get into "temporary" housing, and officials are still making excuses for things not getting done and blaming it on the bureaucracy (full disclosure; I work in a bureaucracy and I know that if someone high up enough wants something done right away, it gets done). It happens in every disaster; Floridians who survived Hurricane Andrew in 1992 will tell you the same thing. But that doesn't get the houses built, it doesn't get the infrastructure back on line, and it doesn't give us the confidence to believe that the next time this happens -- and there will be a next time, perhaps in the next ten days -- we will be any more prepared for what will come or ready to deal with it after.

Meanwhile, there are still people who could care less about the politics if only because they had something worth caring about to begin with. For every tragic story and picture of devastation we'll see out of the Gulf Coast this week, there are untold stories of recovery and rebuilding; things that happen without getting the attention of Anderson Cooper or President Bush, being done by people who do not want the attention. They just want to get on with their lives.

That's because we human beings are amazing creatures of habit. Once we settle into a pattern, it causes consternation and trauma if it is disrupted and we become obsessed with going back to the way things were before. It doesn't matter if we weren't particularly happy with the way things were before, but it's such a sweet trap to think that if only we had what we had back then, life could go on as before and we wouldn't feel so lost about facing the future.

On this date in 1926, a set of twins were born in Minneapolis. Today they mark another milestone birthday -- 80 -- as they have so many before them, and they're still in good health and good spirits.

So, to my dad and my uncle, I send love and hugs and I'm glad you had a great time at the dude ranch this last week.

Last year I put up a little stream-of-conscience poem for this day, and it's worth repeating.

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.

Have a safe trip home, Mom and Dad, and give my regards to Longs Peak as you drive by.

Tom, George, Katrina, and Rockey: What do Tom Cruise, George W. Bush, Hurricane Katrina, and Rockey the FEMA trailer guy have in common? Let Frank Rich explain.

President Bush travels to the Gulf Coast this week, ostensibly to mark the first anniversary of Hurricane Katrina. Everyone knows his real mission: to try to make us forget the first anniversary of the downfall of his presidency.

As they used to say in the French Quarter, bonne chance! The ineptitude bared by the storm — no planning for a widely predicted catastrophe, no attempt to secure a city besieged by looting, no strategy for anything except spin — is indelible. New Orleans was Iraq redux with an all-American cast. The discrepancy between Mr. Bush’s “heckuva job” shtick and the reality on the ground induced a Cronkite-in-Vietnam epiphany for news anchors. At long last they and the country demanded answers to the questions about the administration’s competence that had been soft-pedaled two years earlier when the war first went south.

What’s amazing on Katrina’s first anniversary is how little Mr. Bush seems aware of this change in the political weather. He’s still in a bubble. At last week’s White House press conference, he sounded as petulant as Tom Cruise on the “Today” show when Matt Lauer challenged him about his boorish criticism of Brooke Shields. Asked what Iraq had to do with the attack on the World Trade Center, Mr. Bush testily responded, “Nothing,” adding that “nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attacks.” Like the emasculated movie star, the president is still so infatuated with his own myth that he believes the public will buy such nonsense.

As the rest of the world knows, the White House connived 24/7 to pound in the suggestion that Saddam ordered the attacks on 9/11. “The Bush administration had repeatedly tied the Iraq war to Sept. 11,” Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton write in “Without Precedent,” their new account of their stewardship of the 9/11 commission. The nonexistent Qaeda-Saddam tie-in was as much a selling point for the war as the nonexistent W.M.D. The salesmanship was so merciless that half the country was brainwashed into believing that the 9/11 hijackers had been Iraqis.

To achieve this feat, Dick Cheney spent two years publicly hyping a “pretty well confirmed” (translation: unconfirmed) pre-9/11 meeting in Prague between Mohamed Atta and a Saddam intelligence officer, continuing to do so long after this specious theory had been discredited. Mr. Bush’s strategy was to histrionically stir 9/11 and Iraq into the same sentence whenever possible, before the invasion and after. Typical was his May 1, 2003, oration declaring the end of “major combat operations.” After noting that “the battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September 11th, 2001,” he added: “With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.” To paraphrase the former counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, this was tantamount to saying that the Japanese attacked us on Dec. 7, 1941, and war with Mexico is what they got.

[...]

How do you pretty up this picture? As an opening act, Mr. Bush met on Wednesday with Rockey Vaccarella, a Katrina survivor who with much publicity drove a “replica” of a FEMA trailer from New Orleans to Washington to seek an audience with the president. No Cindy Sheehan bum’s rush for him. Mr. Bush granted his wish and paraded him before the press. That was enough to distract the visitor from his professed message to dramatize the unfinished job on the Gulf. Instead Mr. Vaccarella effusively thanked the president for “the millions of FEMA trailers” complete with air-conditioning and TV. “You know, I wish you had another four years, man,” he said. “If we had this president for another four years, I think we’d be great.”

The CNN White House correspondent, Ed Henry, loved it. “Hollywood couldn’t have scripted this any better, a gritty guy named Rockey slugging it out, trying to realize his dream and getting that dream realized against all odds,” he said. He didn’t ask how this particular Rockey, a fast-food manager who lost everything a year ago, financed this mission or so effortlessly pulled it off. It was up to bloggers and Democrats to report shortly thereafter that Mr. Vaccarella had run as a Republican candidate for the St. Bernard Parish commission in 1999. It was up to Iris Hageney of Gretna, La., to complain on the Times-Picayune Web site that the episode was “a huge embarrassment” that would encourage Americans to “forget the numerous people who still don’t have trailers or at least one with electricity or water.”

That is certainly the White House game plan as it looks toward the president’s two-day return to the scene of the crime. Just as it brought huge generators to floodlight Mr. Bush’s prime-time recovery speech in Jackson Square a year ago — and then yanked the plug as soon as he was done — so it will stop at little to bathe this anniversary in the rosiest possible glow.

Douglas Brinkley, the Tulane University historian who wrote the best-selling account of Katrina, “The Great Deluge,” is worried that even now the White House is escaping questioning about what it is up to (and not) in the Gulf. “I don’t think anybody’s getting the Bush strategy,” he said when we talked last week. “The crucial point is that the inaction is deliberate — the inaction is the action.” As he sees it, the administration, tacitly abetted by New Orleans’s opportunistic mayor, Ray Nagin, is encouraging selective inertia, whether in the rebuilding of the levees (“Only Band-Aids have been put on them”), the rebuilding of the Lower Ninth Ward or the restoration of the wetlands. The destination: a smaller city, with a large portion of its former black population permanently dispersed. “Out of the Katrina debacle, Bush is making political gains,” Mr. Brinkley says incredulously. “The last blue state in the Old South is turning into a red state.”

Perhaps. But with no plan for salvaging either of the catastrophes on his watch, this president can no sooner recover his credibility by putting on an elaborate show of sermonizing and spin this week than Mr. Cruise could levitate his image by jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch. While the White House’s latest screenplay may have been conceived as “Mission Accomplished II,” what we’re likely to see play out in New Orleans won’t even be a patch on “Mission: Impossible III.”

New Orleans -- the Ghost City: What's left of the Big Easy a year after Katrina? Peter Whoriskey reports in the Washington Post.

When it was fresh, the epic wreckage of Hurricane Katrina inspired rallying cries of "We will rebuild!" But a year after the costliest natural disaster in U.S. history, vast stretches of this city and the Gulf Coast are still largely abandoned, and many here wonder whether the destruction may be more permanent than anyone could at first conceive.

Tallies of electric bills and school enrollment figures show that less than half of New Orleans's pre-storm population of 455,000 has returned. The population of adjacent St. Bernard Parish has shrunk from 65,000 to less than 20,000. In small towns along the Mississippi Coast from Bay St. Louis to Biloxi, fewer than 5 percent of destroyed homes are being rebuilt.

Exactly how long the damaged areas will take to recover -- if they recover -- has been a matter of intense speculation ever since the waters receded. But with each passing day, more of the displaced are buying houses or signing leases in faraway cities, and the weeds in the abandoned yards grow higher.

By one measure, this "ghost town" effect may be long-lasting. On one typical middle-class New Orleans street that was flooded, 10 of 15 families surveyed by The Washington Post said they have no plans to return this year, if ever. Only one family of the 15 has gone back so far.

"Don't assume those people who've left the city are just waiting to come back -- they're not," said Rob Couhig, a New Orleans businessman who chairs a mayoral panel to kick-start the recovery. "Katrina has fundamentally changed the population of this city."

The prolonged absence of people -- tens of thousands of them -- is perplexing officials all along the 80-mile stretch of the Gulf Coast whacked by Katrina, from New Orleans to Biloxi.

"We thought there'd be a lot more people pulling building permits by now," said Jerry Creel, Biloxi's community development director. "We're not sure where they are."

Money is one problem. The billions in federal relief funds for homeowners began to flow just a few weeks ago. Some insurance settlements have been contentious and slow.

Some people have stayed away out of fear -- no one knows what the next hurricane might do because the levees are not guaranteed to protect in a major hurricane.

And as the economy has shriveled along with the population, jobs have disappeared. Employment in the sprawling New Orleans region has shrunk to 437,000 jobs, off about 30 percent from pre-storm levels, and within the city, the percentage is considerably higher.

Here Comes Ernesto: Speaking of hurricanes, the first storm formed in the Atlantic basin is heading through the Caribbean and pointing towards the central Gulf of Mexico. Time to stock up on the Dinty Moore and D-cells.

Jesus, That's Funny? A Christian comic strip is making its debut.

Newspaper readers around the country this month opened their comics sections to see a character preaching the Gospel.

“The Bible tells us that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God,” the character says, shouting into a cellphone in a crowded place. “But the good news is that the free gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ His son!”

His friend looks at him. “That’s not even a working phone, is it?” he says.

“No,” the talker admits, “but it’s a great way to share my faith!”

The strip, called “Heaven’s Love Thrift Shop,” made its debut in 15 American newspapers this month, with quotations from Scripture and characters talking about their faith. Though other comics occasionally address religious themes, mainstream newspapers and syndicates have largely avoided strips that make religion so central.

“Religion has always been a bit of a taboo subject, because you’re writing a strip for the largest mass audience,” said Brian Walker, a cartoonist who has also written several books about the history of comics. “In a conventional strip, you’re afraid that if you even mention a Christian holiday, people are going to complain that you don’t mention Muslim holidays.”

Because of the religious content in “Heaven’s Love Thrift Shop,” several papers have run it in the news pages rather than with other comics.

Kevin Frank, the strip’s author, said his goal was “very simplistic, to remind people that there is a God and God loves them.” To this end, he said, he planned to avoid “hot-button political issues, because even among people of faith those are divisive.”

I'm not sure the author meant to call his strip "simplistic," which means shallow and devoid of meaning... unless he thinks the audience he's writing for can't grasp something as deep and personal as spirituality unless it's done in a simplistic way.

Mr. Frank may think he's treading on dangerous ground here by injecting religion into a comic strip and delicately trying to avoiding politics. His caution has precedence; a lot of people object to Doonesbury because of its sharp political jabs to the degree where a lot of papers have put it on the editorial pages. What they forget is that comic strips had their origin in political commentary, and some of the most erudite and complex issues were dealt with in four panels and bubbles by the likes of Walt Kelly (Pogo), Johnny Hart (B.C.), and Al Capp (Li'l Abner). And let's not forget that the most popular strip of all time, Peanuts, regularly delved into religious issues through Linus, Snoopy, and Charlie Brown.

My one test of a comic strip: is it funny?

And speaking of Doonesbury, today History comes calling.

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 8:29 AM  

The Republicans were all aquiver at the beginning of the month as the Democratic primary in Connecticut played out the Lieberman/Lamont battle, and there were dire predictions from the likes of Cokie Roberts as how the Lamont victory was a "disaster" for the Democrats.

But as certain bloggers pointed out at the time, the GOP has their own little "disaster" waiting for them in Rhode Island as right-winger Steve Laffey challenges moderate incumbent Sen. Lincoln Chafee.

The Laffey-Chafee Republican showdown Sept. 12 is the next chapter in the turbulent 2006 election saga. A spate of primary upsets -- especially Ned Lamont's victory over Democratic Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in Connecticut -- have signaled that no incumbent is safe in a year when voters are agitating for change. With his spirited campaign against Sen. Chafee, Laffey is trying to push that frustration one step further. He wants to turn his race into a referendum on personality and attitude.

Rhode Island is a solidly Democratic state, but it does elect moderate Republicans such as Chafee and his late father, the veteran GOP Sen. John Chafee. During his seven-year tenure, "Linc" has distinguished himself as one of the Senate's least partisan members. Modest and soft-spoken, he has broken with his party on tax cuts, judicial nominations and environmental issues, and he was the only Republican senator to vote against the Iraq war.

In terms of temperament and political style, Laffey is Chafee's opposite -- confrontational and impatient, a working-class kid who scoffs at his opponent's patrician pedigree. Laffey dismisses the senator's careful approach to legislating as a big reason Congress cannot get anything done.

"He's become irrelevant," Laffey said of Chafee in a recent radio debate. "I work hard at good relations with everyone," Chafee responded.

The similarities between the Connecticut race -- both in terms of personality and politics -- are pretty clear; an incumbent senator who often breaks with his party versus a challenger being promoted by a group that is outside of the party structure. But the end result could be more a disaster for the Republicans. After all, if Joe Lieberman wins as an independent in Connecticut, he will still -- nominally -- be a Democrat. But if Laffey wins the Republican primary in Rhode Island, the chances are that he will lose in the general election to Sheldon Whitehouse, the Democratic nominee, giving the Democrats one of the five seats they need to win back the majority in the Senate.

The National Review is on record as saying that it's more important for them to run a doctrinaire True Believer than to actually win the race. In either party, that mindset has disaster written all over it, but in Rhode Island it could actually make a difference.

Christopher Hitchens proved last night that even if you're erudite and clever, you can still be at a loss for words.

Christopher Hitchen’s was in top form during Real Time’s premiere episode. His style usually consists of one part nasty–one part mean and he showcased it well Friday night. During a segment on Bill Maher’s show–he flipped the audience off and cursed them out. I’ve seen Maher ask the audience to calm down before, but never have I seen a guest react like that.

Video-WMP

A few minutes later he cursed the audience out again. Hey, what’s wrong with a few F-bombs between friends now and again.

Mr. Hitchens is one of those people who thinks that if you have an English accent, you come across as intelligent and classy. Obviously that is not the case.

Glenn Greenwald takes a look at a column by Walter Williams, who says that the only thing preventing us from really knocking out terrorism is "liberal handwringing" over the use of nuclear weapons to do the job.

Terrorist supporters know we have this capacity, but because of worldwide public opinion, which often appears to be on their side, coupled with our weak will, we'll never use it.

Today's Americans are vastly different from those of my generation who fought the life-and-death struggle of World War II. Any attempt to annihilate our Middle East enemies would create all sorts of handwringing about the innocent lives lost, so-called collateral damage.

Compare that with this:

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching a moment of truth both for ourselves as human beings and for the life of our nation. Now, truth is not always a pleasant thing. But it is necessary now to make a choice, to choose between two admittedly regrettable, but nevertheless distinguishable, postwar environments: one where you got twenty million people killed, and the other where you got a hundred and fifty million people killed.

President Merkin Muffley: You're talking about mass murder, General, not war!

General "Buck" Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops. Uh, depending on the breaks.

As Mr. Greenwald points out, the fact that someone like Walter Williams can propose tactical nuclear strikes against Syria and Iran and no one, not even his friends in Wingnuttia, stands up and says, "Are you fucking insane?" tells you how far we've gone around the bend with the current administration.

Seeing as how President Bush is said to have read Camus' L'etranger during his vacation and yet so far the only noticeable change such reading has wrought is that he used the word "psyche" in a press conference, I was wondering...

What's the one book that -- so far -- has changed your life?

A year ago this morning I published the following picture and put up this post about the first waves of Katrina as she headed for South Florida.

Katrina 5:00 a.m., August 25, 2005

Let's see what the Liberal Coalition is writing about this week.

Coturnix reveals the two things that make us live: sex and food.

archy celebrates his birthday -- the half-century mark -- by going fishing.

Bark Bark Woof Woof takes on Her Holiness, Katherine Harris.

blogAmY celebrates the liberation of Plan B.

bloggg brings us up-to-date on Project Runway.

Collective Sigh on shopping for surgery.

NTodd offers marriage advice.

Echidne doesn't like Forbes.

FDL is counting down to the election.

First Draft remembers NOLA a year later.

Happy Furry Puppy on science and religion.

iddybud ramps it up for John Edwards in Iowa.

Left is Right on possible troop movements.

Lefty calls in sick.

Liberty Street on Bush and God.

Make Me A Commentator dissects Tony Blankley.

Musing's musings musings on xenophobic ignominy.

Pen-Elayne pens a response to some explosive spam.

Rook recalls a time when presidential politics were really dirty.

rubber hose ponders an escort service.

Scrutiny Hooligans flags a teacher in Colorado.

Sooner Thought looks over the shoulder of a visionary genius.

Speedkill goes for the soul.

Steve Gilliard on the bus in Louisiana.

T. Rex takes up the cause of the endangered manatee and hopes to make a certain congress critter's term endangered.

The Countess on parody and stupidity.

The Invisible Library calls the president's book count suspicious.

WTF Is It Now?? on the fundraiser in chief for the racist goober in Virginia.

The Yellow Doggerel Democrat gets all cross-pollenated.

...You Are A Tree offers a humor quiz.

Professional driver. Closed course. Do not attempt.

Snowball plays "pounce" on an unsuspecting decoy.

If this interview with Florida Baptist Witness doesn't sink Katherine Harris's hopes for winning the election to the Senate, I am at a loss to say what will. Some excerpts:

What role do you think people of faith should play in politics and government?

The Bible says we are to be salt and light. And salt and light means not just in the church and not just as a teacher or as a pastor or a banker or a lawyer, but in government and we have to have elected officials in government and we have to have the faithful in government and over time, that lie we have been told, the separation of church and state, people have internalized, thinking that they needed to avoid politics and that is so wrong because God is the one who chooses our rulers.

[...]

Do you support civil rights protections on the basis of sexual preference?

Civil rights have to do with individual rights and I don’t think they apply to the gay issues. I have not supported gay marriage and I do not support any civil rights actions with regard to homosexuality.

[...]

What is your view on state funding of embryonic stem cell research?

I am adamantly opposed to embryonic stem cell research and voted as such. I’m the only candidate in the primary or general who’s voted against embryonic stem cell research and has voted for cord blood research and adult stem cell research. We’ve had enormous successes with nasal cells, other things in terms of adult stem cell research as well as cord blood. There are no successes for embryonic. That is why the private sector is not involved and there is no justification for taking a live embryo and destroying it.

Why should Florida Baptists care about this primary election?

They should care about this election period. I will tell you that everywhere I go throughout the state and even the nation, people say the pollsters, the politicians and spiritually—that Florida is the forerunner state. That what happens in Florida sets the trend for what happens nationally. And with this election, if Bill Nelson wins, it’s going to be a very frightening proposition in 2008 in the presidential elections because whoever wins Florida will win the presidency. And he’ll be in a position to largely influence. No other candidate can beat Bill Nelson except for me. No one even has a chance because of name identification and fund raising abilities and things like that. But the real issue is why should Baptists care, why should people care? If you are not electing Christians, tried and true, under public scrutiny and pressure, if you’re not electing Christians then in essence you are going to legislate sin. They can legislate sin. They can say that abortion is alright. They can vote to sustain gay marriage. And that will take western civilization, indeed other nations because people look to our country as one nation as under God and whenever we legislate sin and we say abortion is permissible and we say gay unions are permissible, then average citizens who are not Christians, because they don’t know better, we are leading them astray and it’s wrong. ... [Emphasis added.]

God may choose our rulers (although where he was in 2000 is an open question), but if he truly is a kind and benevolent supreme being, he'll move Heaven and earth to keep this lunatic out of office. She's blown off the Jewish vote -- or anyone else who isn't a "Christian" under her definition. She's trashed any chance of getting the gay vote, and there are a substantial number of queers in this state...and some of them consider themselves to be Republicans (although I have no idea why -- it's like Jews for Hitler -- but hey, live and let live, I always say.) She's completely demolished any chance of getting the vote of people who have any hopes of curing diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, or diabetes; illnesses that strike a large number of the elderly, of which there are a substantial number of here in Florida. It would be interesting to see if she would sign the stem-cell pledge. But she's not really worried, apparently, because when she shuffles off this mortal coil she's going to be seated at the right hand of God:

Some day all of us have to give an account before God for what we have done. Are you certain in your own heart that when you come to that point of accounting that you’ll spend eternity with God in Heaven?

No question.

One day when you stand before God, if He says to you, “Why should I let you into my Heaven?” What you would say in response?

That’s an interesting question. Because I loved Your Son and because I know He died for my sins. I know He was resurrected at Your right hand and I served Him. You know we’re covered with, our sins are covered with His blood and so we are blameless before Him. We are as white as snow.

Typical Republican: letting someone else take the rap for her sins.

Well, it's good to know that she thinks she's going to be in Heaven because she sure as Hell isn't going to be in the United States Senate.

Jerry Falwell says that since life begins at conception, he's opposed to stem-cell research.

Falwell, founder of Virginia's Liberty University and the Moral Majority, said he sympathized with those whose conditions could possibly be helped by stem cell research.

However, he said Tuesday that any medical research must pass a three-part test: "Is it ethically correct? Is it biblically correct? Is it morally correct?"

Stem cell research, Falwell said, "does not pass the smell test."

Okay, fine; if that's the case, I am sure that Mr. Falwell would have no trouble signing the following pledge proposed by Jonathan Alter:

“Because of my strong opposition to embryonic-stem-cell research, I hereby pledge that should I, at any point in the future, develop diabetes, cancer, spinal-cord injuries or Parkinson’s, among other diseases, I will refuse any and all treatments derived from such research, at home or abroad, even if it costs me my life. Signed, ______”

I'm guessing that Mr. Falwell would refuse to sign. Why? Because he doesn't pass the smell test.

What's the worst job you've ever had?

So it's perfectly acceptable if the president breaks wind in the Oval Office.

A top insider let that slip when explaining why President Bush is paranoid around women, always worried about his behavior. But he's still a funny, earthy guy who, for example, can't get enough of fart jokes. He's also known to cut a few for laughs, especially when greeting new young aides, but forget about getting people to gas about that.

I was unaware that Mel Brooks had joined the Bush administration.

The New York Times editorial board tut-tuts Judge Anna Diggs Taylor for not disclosing that she had an indirect link to the ACLU, one of the plaintiffs in the NSA wiretapping case she ruled on last week.

When Judge Anna Diggs Taylor was given the job of deciding whether the Bush administration’s wiretapping program was unconstitutional, she certainly understood that she would be ruling on one of the most politically charged cases in recent history. So it would have been prudent for her to disclose any activity that might conceivably raise questions about her ability to be impartial. Regrettably, it was left to a conservative group, Judicial Watch, to point out her role as a trustee to a foundation that had given grants to a branch of the American Civil Liberties Union, a plaintiff in the case.

The foundation in question — the Community Foundation for Southeastern Michigan — is a large charity that gives out grants to a broad range of organizations engaged in community activity, including some regularly involved in litigation. The $125,000 in grant money directed to the state A.C.L.U. office over several years was for educational programs concerning issues unrelated to the wiretapping case, like racial profiling. While the judge clearly erred in not disclosing this involvement, it wouldn’t seem, based on the known facts, to rise to the level of a conflict of interest reasonably requiring that she recuse herself from hearing the case under existing ethics rules.

Of course the righties are all over this, gleefully accusing the judge of a conflict of interest and that she should have recused herself from the case. But as Glenn Greenwald points out, the righties were dismissive of such calls in another high-profile case, and as far as they're concerned, it only applies when the ruling goes against you.

To illuminate what is really going on here, let us note the fact that the same crowd attacking Taylor now was quite dismissive over a far more serious and corrupt "conflict of interest" -- the fact that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia went on an intimate little hunting trip with Vice President Dick Cheney just weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court decided to accept an appeal in the lawsuit in which Vice President Cheney had been sued for his failure to reveal facts surrounding the Energy Task Force. Cheney never disclosed his hunting excursion, nor did Scalia. Instead, the parties discovered this only when The Los Angeles Times learned of it and then reported it.

As the Washington Post reported at the time, "some legal ethicists and dozens of newspaper editorials have called on Scalia to stay out of the case." But Cheney's good friend and hunting buddy refused to recuse himself, and he then proceeded to vote in favor of his good friend in that case by joining an aggressively pro-Cheney dissent written by Clarence Thomas and joined by nobody else (not even then-Chief Justice William Rehnquist).

Somebody really needs to give these people a seminar in Irony and How to Recognize It.

It's pretty clear what's going on here; the administration can't come back with a coherent defense to the fact that the president blatantly and obviously violated the FISA law and several Constitutional amendments, so insead they launch into the one thing they're best at: vicious attempts to destroy the judge who issued the ruling. The blather and personal attacks that have come down in the last week are breathtaking in their scope of childish rants, up to and including the judicial equivalent of "You're ugly and your momma dresses you funny." As Mr. Greenwald notes, "Look at any individual over the last five years who has prominently and aggressively criticized the Leader, and see if you can find one who has not been the target of vicious, personal assaults designed to destroy their reputation and credibility."

Sen. George Allen got on the phone yesterday and offered a personal apology to S.R. Sidarth for calling him "Macaca" at a campagin rally.

"His main point was he was sorry he offended me," Sidarth, a fourth-year University of Virginia student, said in an interview later. "He realized how much he offended me from the comments I made in the media."

The call followed a series of public mea culpas , including one heard across the country Tuesday on a conservative radio talk show hosted by commentator Sean Hannity.

"I take full responsibility. I'm not offering any excuses because I said it, and no one else said it," a somber-sounding Allen told Hannity's audience of more than 12 million listeners. "It's a mistake. I apologize, and from my heart, I'm very, very sorry for it."

It would be a lot easier to take Sen. Allen at his word if it wasn't for the fact that his campaign is now playing up his abject shame for revealing his racist tendencies as an attempt to take political advantage of it.

As the senator was apologizing, his campaign manager continued to blame Webb, the media and the senator's "leftist" foes for the controversy.

"It's great to have the president in Virginia, raising substantial amounts of money so we can fight off the scurrilous attacks by our opponent and his leftist allies," campaign manager Dick Wadhams said in an interview.

Last weekend, Wadhams sent a memo to GOP supporters in which he accused the media of creating a "feeding frenzy" over the incident and called it a "desperate attempt to revive a campaign that was fast-sinking -- the Webb campaign."

Asked whether that message is consistent with Allen's apologies, Wadhams said, "I think the memo speaks for itself."

Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report, said the Allen campaign is pursuing a two-pronged strategy aimed at convincing some voters that Allen is sorry while motivating his base with attacks against liberals and the media.

"They need a better foil," Cook said. "They need to shift this into 'We're the persecuted.' It was a very, very calculated move."

You have to admit it's an original tactic: Vote for George Allen because you feel sorry for the poor persecuted racist bastard.

With apologies to Oliver Twist, it sounds as if some of the neocons are not happy that we haven't been able to come up a reason to attack Iran.

Some senior Bush administration officials and top Republican lawmakers are voicing anger that American spy agencies have not issued more ominous warnings about the threats that they say Iran presents to the United States.

Some policy makers have accused intelligence agencies of playing down Iran’s role in Hezbollah’s recent attacks against Israel and overestimating the time it would take for Iran to build a nuclear weapon.

The complaints, expressed privately in recent weeks, surfaced in a Congressional report about Iran released Wednesday. They echo the tensions that divided the administration and the Central Intelligence Agency during the prelude to the war in Iraq.

The criticisms reflect the views of some officials inside the White House and the Pentagon who advocated going to war with Iraq and now are pressing for confronting Iran directly over its nuclear program and ties to terrorism, say officials with knowledge of the debate.

I just can't understand why the the CIA and the other intelligence agencies are unwilling to take a stronger stance. After all, they did such a good job in the run-up to the war in Iraq, didn't they?

It was the Democrats' turn last night in Tampa.

In the first debate televised statewide between the Democratic contenders for governor, U.S. Rep. Jim Davis slammed state Sen. Rod Smith as a candidate bought and paid for by corporate interests.

At least I go to work, Smith shot back, defending his independence and leadership and pointing to Davis' second-worst attendance record in the U.S. House of Representatives. Smith also knocked Davis for once voting against compensating two wrongfully convicted black men.

It was a take-that kind of debate, loaded with more policy details than the Republican matchup the night before, with both Davis and Smith drilling into each other's political vulnerabilities.

[...]

Both candidates agreed that electronic voting machines should produce receipts, and that felons should automatically get to vote again after they serve their sentences. Smith and Davis also agree on making sure the state builds enough classrooms and hires enough teachers to fulfill the class-size limits added to the Florida Constitution in 2002.

Neither candidate directly answered a question about how he would close the "achievement gap" between white and minority students. Smith decried the state's emphasis on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test, calling schools "FCAT prep centers."

In response to a question about U.S. policy on Cuban immigration, Davis said the "wet-foot/dry-foot" policy was unjust.

Smith argued that Haitian immigrants should get to stay in the United States if they reach land.

Compared to the Republicans the night before, the Democrats were more wonkish in discussing policy rather than the hysterical liberal-bashing that went on between Gallagher and Crist.

That's the problem with the Democrats; all they do is get into these discussions on how to actually run the state and who benefits from state programs. Where's the fun in that?

This is a follow-up to one from a couple of weeks ago:

You've got $1,000 of found money (the IRS goofed or something) and enough frequent flier miles for a two round-trip tickets to anywhere in North America (including the Caribbean).

Where do you go?

Who do you go with?

This actually happened to me and my ex in 1993. That's how we discovered the beautiful island of Montserrat -- before the volcano erupted.

Boatboy and his mom are off on a trip to visit that scepter'd isle for a few weeks. I know he'll take lots of pictures, including some from my favorite spots like the Lake District. When he gets back, I'll post some of them.

Have a safe trip.

Rule Number One of memo writing is never to do it when you're pissed off because you will most assuredly say things that will come back to bite you in the ass. The second rule is that you should never write something that you wouldn't want to see on line or blogged to death.

This advice apparently never got to Dick Wadhams, the campaign manager for Sen. George Allen (R-VA), who is trying to recover the ground lost last week thanks to the "macaca" incident. It was the liberal media that twice used a racial slur, and that although Sen. Allen has tried to apologize for something he didn't do, well, he's got nothing to be sorry for anyway.

To: GOP leaders/Allen campaign leadership
From: Dick Wadhams, Campaign Manager
Re: Notes on a tough week
August 19, 2006

I think it is obvious that this past week was difficult one for Senator and Mrs. Allen and the campaign. It is very clear that the news media created what they call a "feeding frenzy", with the Washington Post alone doing major stories on the same issue for 5 consecutive days.

Literally putting words into Senator Allen's mouth that he did not say (by speculating, defining and attributing meanings and motives that simply are not true), the Webb campaign and the news media seeming worked hand-in-hand to create national news over something that did not warrant coverage in the first place.

Even after Senator Allen apologized to the Webb campaign staffer in specific, and to anyone who may have been offended in general, the news media continued to print and re-print the same speculations and inaccurate portrayals of Senator Allen's comments. Never in modern times has a statewide officeholder and candidate been so vilified in a desperate attempt to revive a campaign that was fast-sinking ? the Webb campaign.

Senator Allen has said that his comments were a mistake. Who among us has not made mistakes? In fact, how many of us could put in the hours of work, travel, meetings, campaigning, etc. that Senator Allen has over the years and make as few mistakes as he has?

Apparently the media's standard for candidates is now that they must be perfect, not human, and that no mistake or verbal gaffe is to be forgiven, no matter how much the candidate apologize. Will the Washington Post hold it's candidate for the U.S. Senate to the same standard? We will see, but I'm not holding my breath.

The bottom line for us, friends, is that same as it has always been. We cannot rely on the news media to get our positive, constructive message out to the voters. In fact, we cannot expect them to be objective, let along fair. As always, we have to do it together, getting our message directly to the voters.

Senator Allen has a long, positive, successful track record as a member of the House of Delegates and House of Representatives, as our Governor and now as our United States Senator.

There is hardly a place you can go in the Commonwealth that Senator Allen has not visited at least once or touched in some way. Senator Allen and Susan Allen have impacted the lives of tens of thousands of Virginians through their public service and volunteer activities. This is evident to anyone who has participated in a Listening Tour stop this year.

He was there long before his opponent discovered there were such places in Virginia. And, he will be there long after his opponent has faded from the scene.

Looking Ahead

There is no question that this is a tough year to run for the Senate as a Republican. The Democrats and their liberal constituency groups, such as MoveOn.org, are pouring millions of dollars into television attack ads, seeking to take control of the Senate and House. Rep. Thelma Drake has already been a target of their vicious attacks. We expect to see Senator Allen attacked in the same way.

The reason the Democrats run such negative campaigns and always play the race card, is that they have no positive ideas to run on. That is as true this year as in any other. The fact that they have attempted to make race an issue so early in the campaign is evidence of just how desperate they are.

Senator Allen summarizes his public service as making Virginia a better place to live, learn, work and raise a family. And, that's what this campaign is all about.

Senator Allen will win because he is right on the issues. He will win because he has done a great job as Senator and Governor. He will win because he has stayed in touch with Virginians and been responsive to their needs. He will win because he and Susan will work harded than anyone to get the job done.

And, Senator Allen will win because of your help and support. Now is the time to rally for Senator Allen and our Congressional candidates. Now is the time to get our positive message out door-to- door, by telephone and at fairs, festivals and meetings of all sizes.

You are the secret weapon that Senator Allen has always confounded the pundits with.

Let's show the liberal interest groups that by coming to Virginia, they have gotten more than they bargained for and that they need not bother us ever again!

Dick Wadhams, Campaign Manager

It's pretty clear that Mr. Wadhams wrote this in one draft -- has he ever heard of proof-reading? I found at least five typos or grammatical errors, including the egregious misuse of "it's" and prepositions dangling all over the place.

It's also pretty clear that he is pissed off to the point of incoherence and therefore lets fly with every bombastic and hilarious cliche of the bunker mentality: everyone is against us, and therefore we're going to show them all. Senator Allen apologized for making a mistake -- who doesn't make a mistake -- but he really didn't make a mistake in the first place: it was the liberal media that made up with the story that "macaca" is a racial slur in North Africa; in Viriginia, it means "bubba."

My guess is that the next memo from Dick Wadhams will be that he never wrote the memo above, and even if he did, he's got nothing to apologize for.

(HT to AMERICAblog.)

The Miami-Dade County Public School Board voted to appeal a federal judge's ruling that prevented it from banning a children's book from school library shelves.

In a 5-2 decision, the board said it wanted to protect the right of the district to determine the content of school libraries, rather than leave it up to a judge.

"Do we have a right to protect our children?" said board member Frank Bolaños, who joined Agustín Barrera, Perla Tabares Hantman, Ana Rivas Logan and Marta Pérez in voting for the appeal. "I think we have the right and responsibility to do that."

The appeal to the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, which the board's attorney said will be costly, will likely be heard late this fall. Until then, the books must remain on shelves in dozens of schools, mainly elementaries.

[...]

The board voted in June to remove the books, saying they oversimplify the foreign countries they portray for their 5- to 7-year-old target audience. Only the Cuba book was discussed in detail, lending fuel to the American Civil Liberties Union's lawsuit and suggesting to U.S. District Judge Alan Gold that the ban was based on politics, not pedagogy.

"They over and over stated that the reason they were doing it is because of a particular political ideology," said Virginia Rosen, president of the Greater Miami ACLU. "That political ideology reflects only some of their constituents."

There is more than just the faint whiff of politics in this story -- it reeks of it. Two board members, Agustin Barrera and Frank Bolaños, are in political races that center on this silly issue, and both of them are carefully tailoring their words and actions for the benefit of their political futures, not for the rule of law or the children of Miami-Dade County

This case is going to end up costing the school board a quarter of a million dollars -- win or lose -- to settle it. Chances are it will cost a lot more in terms of respect. This story has already made the national news -- NPR had a piece on it this morning -- and it's an embarrassment to the district when far more important issues like crumbling schools and overcrowded classrooms go begging because a 32-page picture book for first graders doesn't get into a discussion about the virtues of capitalism over the evils of socialism.

One of the harsh realities about living in free society is that you have to put up with opinions that you don't agree with and teach your children that hearing other points of view or no view at all is one of the blessings -- and curses -- of life in America.

The Miami Herald has a wrap-up of the debate last night between the leading Republican candidates for governor in Florida.

TAMPA - If name-dropping determined who won Tuesday's debate between the Republican candidates for governor, Tom Gallagher and Charlie Crist battled to a draw.

Gallagher put Crist in the same "liberal" camp as Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, and Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean, who signed a law permitting same-sex civil unions when he was governor of Vermont.

Crist tossed out names, too, those of popular Republican politicians. He said he believes in keeping taxes low, like former Florida Sen. Connie Mack and former President Ronald Reagan. He referred to current Florida Sen. Mel Martinez, "my friend who's with us tonight . . . who has endorsed me along with [Arizona] Sen. John McCain."

Crist, who also called himself a "compassionate conservative," even quoted President Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address, saying he bore "malice toward none, with charity for all."

In a race defined by carrying on Gov. Jeb Bush's legacy, the two Republicans sought to define themselves and each other in their first matchup broadcast statewide on public television stations.

But showing composure while flinging barbs wins debates, not dropping names, and on those counts, Crist came out ahead. The state attorney general remained unflappable and good-humored, and in a dramatic flourish waved a copy of a state ethics commission opinion criticizing Gallagher.

Gallagher, the state's chief financial officer, fumbled his opening attack, stammering as he warned voters that Crist would lead Florida down a "liberal risky path." He seemed frustrated by what he called Crist's "bumper sticker" answers.

But he stuck to his strategy of pounding Crist for his more moderate stances on abortion, gay civil unions and stem-cell research.

"This race is between three liberals and one conservative, between three lawyers and a businessman," Gallagher said, lumping Crist with the Democratic candidates for governor, U.S. Rep. Jim Davis and state Sen. Rod Smith. "Floridians stand to lose their conservative voice in this election."

It sounds more like a race to find out which Republican will take Florida back to 19th century the fastest.

It also sounds like neither of these candidates are aware of the fact that there is more to the state of Florida than the panhandle, and that the majority of the population lives south of Orlando...and we vote, too. Railing against stem cell research in a state where a lot of the population is more than mildly interested in health care is not a good idea, and coming across as a gay-bashing bigot doesn't play well in places like Wilton Manors or Miami Beach. And running on the coattails of Jeb Bush, whose biggest claim to fame is that he's not as big a screw-up as his older brother, seems like grasping at straws.

The Democrats -- Jim Davis and Rod Smith -- debate tonight, and for many Floridians it will be their first chance to hear them.

A school board race here in Miami may be decided by the book.

The genesis of the District 6 race for the Miami-Dade School Board -- one that involves two candidates, tens of thousands of likely voters and nearly $100,000 in campaign contributions -- is a 32-page children's book.

The book, Vamos a Cuba, has consumed the school system for months and looked, at one point, as if it could consume the political career of incumbent board member Agustín Barrera.

Barrera outraged a number of small but vocal hard-line Cuban exile groups in April when he voted against a bill that would have aborted the district's appeals process and immediately removed the controversial book from school libraries.

In June, attorney Manny Anon was introduced at a news conference in Little Havana as the man who could unseat Barrera in the nonpartisan race.

A few days later, the appeals process reached the board, and Barrera cast a deciding vote for the book's removal. By that time, however, Anon had broadened his target to include Superintendent Rudy Crew, whom Barrera has supported firmly.

"It started with the book issue, but it morphed into bigger issues of anti-Rudy Crew," said Anon, a former Miami assistant city attorney who now works for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees union. "The Hispanics don't trust Rudy Crew."

But Anon -- who returned to Miami this spring after a year as a military lawyer in Afghanistan as part of his Army reserve duty -- has been disappointed by sparse support from the heavily Hispanic electorate of the Coral Gables-South Miami district.

He has raised only $4,000 and loaned himself another $10,000 to compete with Barrera's $80,000 bankroll. The neighborhood's prominent politicians have done little for Anon's cause, and he fears the most passionate exiles have been consumed by the turmoil over Fidel Castro's transfer of power in Cuba.

"It's going slow," Anon said this week over breakfast at Versailles. "They never really promised me money, and I understand that. A lot of these people are poor."

Without the righteous indignation, however, Anon has done little to contrast himself with Barrera. They both support the state's class-size amendment, both oppose asking voters for a new school-construction tax now, and both would consider asking for such a tax in a few years.

There's some polling going on in this race -- I got called last week. I assume that it was from the Barrera campaign since it looks like Mr. Anon hasn't raised enough money for bus fare. I let the poller know in no uncertain terms that not only would anyone who was in favor of banning the book not get my vote, but I would actively campaign against such a candidate.

Whether or not Vamos a Cuba is an issue in the campaign indicates how easily the voters -- and therefore the candidates -- are easily distracted by noise rather than substance. It's not like we don't have more important things to deal with in our schools, but chanting street demonstrations by people who have no sense of irony (many who are against the book are Cuban exiles who came here seeking freedom of speech) makes for better coverage on the local news than the inside baseball of class-size reduction and millage assessments.

As a side note, the biographies of both candidates indicate that neither of them have any experience whatsoever in education, either as teachers or administrators; one is an architect and the other is a lawyer. In fact, Barrera won his election in 2002 running against Anita Sandler, a thirty-plus year veteran teacher and administrator and once Teacher of the Year. Call me crazy, but I think it might not be a bad idea for some members of the school board to have some familiarity with the day-to-day life in the public schools other than the years they might have spent as a student.

The president has drawn a line in the sand. He's staked out his future -- and that of his political allies -- on the outcome of war in Iraq.

The Iraq war and the buildup to it helped fuel Republican victories in 2002 and 2004, but polls now show that a majority of Americans have doubts about progress in Iraq.

The White House and Republican Party officials have argued that the Iraq war remains potent politically for Republicans when they cast it as part of the broader war on terror, though they have sometimes found it difficult to make that case.

When Mr. Bush referred to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on Monday in reference to a question about Iraq, a reporter pressed him, “What did Iraq have to do with that?”

“Nothing,” Mr. Bush responded somewhat testily, adding, “Nobody has ever suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack.”

Well, we know that's bullshit; Dick Cheney has been saying that all along, so it sounds like the president and Mr. Cheney need to have a little chat so that the vice president can straighten out Mr. Bush.

It's one thing to take a position and stick with it in the face of powerful opposition and getting all Jimmy Stewart in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. But it sounds like the only reason the president is sticking to his guns in Iraq has nothing whatsoever to do with the situation on the ground there or what the generals are telling him and everything to do with the midterm elections in November. So the soldiers and civilians in Iraq are fighting and dying just so the Republicans can keep a majority in the House and Senate? How sick is that?

Speaking of politics, President Bush, right-wing pundits, and cranky old wingnut gaffers on C-SPAN's call-in shows insist on referring to the opposition party as the "Democrat Party." They know that's not the name of the party, but like a six-year-old on a sugar jag, they keep doing it because they know it pisses some people off. It also pretty much sums up the level of Neener-Neener political discourse coming out of the GOP. I suppose we could counter by referring to the "Republic Party," which has a slightly fascist tone to it, but it would only be playing their game. Besides, the only name that I want to attach to them in November is "Loser."

The Virginia Senate race is getting narrower.

In an election for the United States Senate in Virginia today, 8/21/06, incumbent Republican George Allen edges Democrat challenger James Webb 48% to 45%, according to an exclusive SurveyUSA poll conducted for W*USA-TV in Washington, DC.

Since an identical SurveyUSA poll released 6/28/06, Allen has lost 8 points and Webb has gained 8 points. Allen's lead has shrunk from 19 points to 3 points.

Interviewing for this poll began 8/18/06, one week after Allen singled out a Webb campaign worker at an Allen rally. Allen has lost support across all demographic groups, but in particular, among younger voters. He has gone from Plus 23 to Minus 17, a swing of 40 points. In Southeastern VA, Allen has gone from a 2:1 lead to a tie, a 31-point swing.

That would indicate that Virginians are not impressed with Sen. Allen's lame excuses for referring to a man of Indian descent as "Macaca." A glimmer of hope for the intolerance of intolerance.

But only a glimmer. In the same poll, Virginians would vote 2-to-1 in favor of an amendment to the state's constitution to ban gay marriage or anything that resembles it. So they still have a long way to go, baby.

I'm sure there's a website or a blog that catalogues the outrages of organized religion; Dog knows there's plenty of it every day. And this story must top the chart for the day.

WATERTOWN, N.Y. -- The pastor of a church that has stopped letting women teach Sunday school said that won't affect his decisions as a city councilman in upstate New York.

Rev. Timothy LaBouf dismissed a female Sunday School teacher this month, saying a woman can perform any job -- outside the church.

The First Baptist Church in Watertown dismissed Mary Lambert Aug. 9 after adopting what it called a literal interpretation of the Bible.

The reverend recently dismissed Lambert, who had taught Sunday school for 54 years, citing the biblical advice of the apostle Paul: "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent."

Lambert has publicly criticized the decision.

The church board said other issues were behind Lambert's dismissal, but it did not say what they were.

LaBouf, who also serves on the Watertown City Council, issued a statement saying his stance against women teaching men in Sunday school would not affect his decisions as a city leader in Watertown, where all five members of the council are men but the city manager who runs the city's day-to-day operations is a woman.

"I believe that a woman can perform any job and fulfill any responsibility that she desires to" outside the church, LaBouf wrote Saturday.

Mayor Jeffrey Graham, however, was bothered by the reasons given Lambert's dismissal.

"If what's said in that letter reflects the councilman's views, those are disturbing remarks in this day and age," Graham said. "Maybe they wouldn't have been disturbing 500 years ago, but they are now."

Here's an idea: let's pass a law that says it is illegal for any member of the clergy to hold a position of power in any government entity. After all, separation of church and state, right? Besides, these humble ministers of the Gospel should be more concerned about leading their own flock of gullible faithful followers and leave the governing of the city to people who are at least grounded in the 20th century, not the 13th. Outrageous? You bet. But so is Mr. LaBouf and his medieval interpretation of fairy tales and superstition.

The Christian conservatives all whimper and whine that there's an "anti-Christian" bias in this country. Aside from that being the most steaming pile of sulphurous bullshit to hit the floor in this century, it's things like the dismissal of Mrs. Lambert that make people, including some of those to whom their faith means a great deal, shudder with revulsion at the things that are done in the name of religion. Forget gay marriage, stem cells, or abortion. This is the kind of sanctimonious bigotry that makes the average American sneer at the Religious Reich, and it just goes to show you why we really need the wall that separates the church from the state.

John Dickerson suggests that the Democrats should use scare tactics of their own.

Of course Republicans are trying to scare voters into voting for them. Why shouldn't they? As a policy matter, asking which party will keep us from being killed by jihadists in a plane or at a shopping mall seems a pretty fundamental question in any national election. As a political tactic, how could the GOP resist? Scaring voters has worked in past elections, allows Republicans to highlight issues of law and order and national security that have been their traditional strengths, and it forces Democrats into fits and unforced errors.

[...]

Here's my advice: The Democrats should embrace fear-mongering more passionately. They should embrace the tradition of the "missile gap"—the idea that the United States dangerously trailed the Soviet Union in missile firepower—that in the late 1950s helped young Sen. John Kennedy attack then-President Dwight Eisenhower. This would be good politics, and it would stir a good and currently muffled policy debate.

[...]

The question the Democrats should be asking is whether Bush's policies are inspiring the people who want to kill us. Since Republicans argue that if you elect Democrats, more Americans will die, it's logical for Democrats to ask whether continuing the current policies will cause more American deaths. Were the London plotters captured last week hyper-motivated by Bush's policies? The idea is to shift the debate from whether the Democrats would do a better job if they were in charge to whether giving them some control—a majority in one house of Congress, for starters—might lessen the degree to which George Bush and his Republican majority represent an ever-better recruitment tool for extremists.

[...]

My fear is that Democrats won't have the guts to fight fear with fear, perhaps because they don't want to be accused of being politically craven on an issue where they are weak. Maybe in the end, as a political matter they won't pay a stiff price for failing to. Polling suggests that the GOP effort to fan the fear-mongering flames in the wake of the London arrests and Ned Lamont victory have not increased the GOP's standing. Still, if Democrats don't aggressively ask whether the Republican policies are inspiring a greater number of people to devote their lives to killing Americans than would otherwise be the case, we'll miss a chance to have the kind of messy, realism-filled public debate we somehow continue to skirt. Democrats should stretch beyond the bumper sticker and ask the really scary questions.

The one thing the GOP seems to be afraid of is that if we really do have the kind of messy, realism-filled public debate that Mr. Dickerson advocates -- and he's absolutely right on that score -- they will lose. All the Republicans can do is point to their scary questions, because when it comes to actually improving the protection of this country and quelling the anti-American feelings, they have failed miserably on both points. You can't take your exploding Prell on your shuttle flight from Traverse City to Minneapolis, but you can bring it in by the shipload to Port Everglades. Meanwhile, our swaggering paper-tiger arrogance has cost us allies and posioned the fragile well of good will that we were slowly restoring in the thirty years after Vietnam. The golden opportunity of winning friends and influencing good government in the vacuum of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact has been pissed away like Coors Light at a DKE frat party.

So, yes, the Democrats should be asking the scary questions such as, Do you want to live in world where every teenager in an Islamic country grows up with the burning desire to kill himself and take out the nearest American with him? Do you want to live in a world where every dictator uses the threat of Yankee imperialism as their excuse for repression? Do you want to live in a world where rogue nations build nuclear weapons because they know there's no other way to get the attention of the world's last superpower? And do you want to live in a world where history is stuck in a feedback loop of teaching the same tragic lessons over and over because the leaders -- who were there the last time -- didn't pay attention the first time?

Chuck Hagel says the Republicans have "lost their way."

Republicans have lost their way when it comes to many core GOP principles and may be in jeopardy heading into the fall elections, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb. says. Hagel, a possible presidential candidate in 2008, said Sunday that the GOP today is very different party from the one when he first voted Republican.

"First time I voted was in 1968 on top of a tank in the Mekong Delta," said Hagel, a Vietnam veteran. "I voted a straight Republican ticket. The reason I did is because I believe in the Republican philosophy of governance. It's not what it used to be. I don't think it's the same today."

Hagel asked: "Where is the fiscal responsibility of the party I joined in '68? Where is the international engagement of the party I joined _ fair, free trade, individual responsibility, not building a bigger government, but building a smaller government?"

His frustration does not lead him to think Democrats offer a better alternative. But Hagel wants to see the GOP return to its basic beliefs.

If you thought that Chuck Hagel was giving the Democrats a little hope that there's disgruntlement in the ranks, don't be fooled. He's aiming for the swing voters who are pissed off at the president -- and that's a lot of people -- and staking out his ground as yet another party maverick who isn't afraid to talk tough to the powers that be. It's all with an eye to run for president he's planning in 2008.

The trouble is that if there's any Republican out there with a hope of running and winning in '08, he or she is going to have to distance themselves from the current administration and demonstrate that they really, really mean it when they say they're for smaller government and fiscal responsibility. ("No, we really mean it this time.") This was Hagel's shot. Next week it will be Rudy Giuliani, followed by Newt Gingrich, then Mitt Romney, and, for all we know, Teddy the Wonder Lizard.

John McCain, the original maverick from 2000 (and not to be confused with the cheap car from Ford in 1970), is already out there making all the noise like he's the one -- and rounding up all the old reliables from the current administration to run his campaign.

So maybe the comparison with the Ford is right after all. The 1970 Maverick was a flashy new body on a tired old frame and engine; a re-dressed Ford Falcon which was destined for the scrap heap.

Ford Maverick

Would you buy a used car from this party?

To my older brother.

Enjoy the mountain views on your day, and remember the first time you saw them; it was probably a view a lot like this.

Sharper Than a Serpent's Tooth: Some of the right-wing pundits are biting the hand that fed them.

For 10 minutes, the talk show host grilled his guests about whether "George Bush's mental weakness is damaging America's credibility at home and abroad." For 10 minutes, the caption across the bottom of the television screen read, "IS BUSH AN 'IDIOT'?"

But the host was no liberal media elitist. It was Joe Scarborough, a former Republican congressman turned MSNBC political pundit. And his answer to the captioned question was hardly "no." While other presidents have been called stupid, Scarborough said: "I think George Bush is in a league by himself. I don't think he has the intellectual depth as these other people."

These have been tough days politically for President Bush, what with his popularity numbers mired in the 30s and Republican candidates distancing themselves as elections near. He can no longer even rely as much on once-friendly voices in the conservative media to stand by his side, as some columnists and television commentators lose faith in his leadership and lose heart in the war in Iraq.

[...]

While the country does not want a leader wallowing in the weeds, Scarborough concluded on the segment, "we do need a president who, I think, is intellectually curious."

"And that is a big question," Scarborough said, "whether George W. Bush has the intellectual curiousness -- if that's a word -- to continue leading this country over the next couple of years."

In a later telephone interview, Scarborough said he aired the segment because he kept hearing even fellow Republicans questioning Bush's capacity and leadership, particularly in Iraq. Like others, he said, he supported the war but now thinks it is time to find a way to get out. "A lot of conservatives are saying, 'Enough's enough,' " he said. Asked about the reaction to his program, he said, "The White House is not happy about it."

Fearless: One of the reasons Mr. Scarborough probably felt emboldened to ask the question is that, as Frank Rich points out, the Bush administration has overplayed their fearful hand.

It’s not as if the White House didn’t pull out all the stops to milk the terror plot to further its politics of fear. One self-congratulatory presidential photo op was held at the National Counterterrorism Center, a dead ringer for the set in “24.” But Mr. Bush’s Jack Bauer is no more persuasive than his Tom Cruise of “Top Gun.” By crying wolf about terrorism way too often, usually when a distraction is needed from bad news in Iraq, he and his administration have long since become comedy fodder, and not just on “The Daily Show.” June’s scenario was particularly choice: as Baghdad imploded, Alberto Gonzales breathlessly unmasked a Miami terror cell plotting a “full ground war” and the destruction of the Sears Tower, even though the alleged cell had no concrete plans, no contacts with terrorist networks and no equipment, including boots.

What makes the foiled London-Pakistan plot seem more of a serious threat — though not so serious it disrupted Tony Blair’s vacation — is that the British vouched for it, not Attorney General Gonzales and his Keystone Kops. This didn’t stop Michael Chertoff from grabbing credit in his promotional sprint through last Sunday’s talk shows. “It was as if we had an opportunity to stop 9/11 before it actually was carried out,” he said, insinuating himself into that royal we. But no matter how persistent his invocation of 9/11, our secretary of homeland security is too discredited to impress a public that has been plenty disillusioned since Karl Rove first exhibited the flag-draped remains of a World Trade Center victim in a 2004 campaign commercial. We look at Mr. Chertoff and still see the man who couldn’t figure out what was happening in New Orleans when the catastrophe was being broadcast in real time on television.

[...]

The hyperbole that has greeted the Lamont victory in some quarters is far more revealing than the victory itself. In 2006, the tired Rove strategy of equating any Democratic politician’s opposition to the Iraq war with cut-and-run defeatism in the war on terror looks desperate. The Republicans are protesting too much, methinks. A former Greenwich selectman like Mr. Lamont isn’t easily slimed as a reincarnation of Abbie Hoffman or an ally of Osama bin Laden. What Republicans really see in Mr. Lieberman’s loss is not a defeat in the war on terror but the specter of their own defeat. Mr. Lamont is but a passing embodiment of a fixed truth: most Americans think the war in Iraq was a mistake and want some plan for a measured withdrawal. That truth would prevail even had Mr. Lamont lost.

A similar panic can be found among the wave of pundits, some of them self-proclaimed liberals, who apoplectically fret that Mr. Lamont’s victory signals the hijacking of the Democratic Party by the far left (here represented by virulent bloggers) and a prospective replay of its electoral apocalypse of 1972. Whatever their political affiliation, almost all of these commentators suffer from the same syndrome: they supported the Iraq war and, with few exceptions (mainly at The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard), are now embarrassed that they did. Desperate to assert their moral superiority after misjudging a major issue of our time, they loftily declare that anyone who shares Mr. Lamont’s pronounced opposition to the Iraq war is not really serious about the war against the jihadists who attacked us on 9/11.

[...]

As the election campaign quickens, genuine nightmares may well usurp the last gasps of Rovian fear-based politics. It’s hard to ignore the tragic reality that American troops are caught in the cross-fire of a sectarian bloodbath escalating daily, that botched American policy has strengthened Iran and Hezbollah and undermined Israel, and that our Department of Homeland Security is as ill-equipped now to prevent explosives (liquid or otherwise) in cargo as it was on 9/11. For those who’ve presided over this debacle and must face the voters in November, this is far scarier stuff than a foiled terrorist cell, nasty bloggers and Ned Lamont combined.

Glass Act: The Toledo Museum of Art opens a new pavillion to celebrate the art and craft of glass-making.

Six years of intense planning culminates in this week’s celebrations of the Toledo Museum of Art’s latest masterpiece: the Glass Pavilion, which opens to the public next Sunday and for a series of invitation-only previews and festivities beginning Tuesday.

A sleek whisper of a building, the pavilion is nestled in a grove of mature maples and oaks at the edge of the gracious Old West End neighborhood, across Monroe Street from the main museum. It showcases and stores one of the world’s finest collections of glass — 5,000 pieces spanning 4,000 years of glassmaking — painstakingly packed, moved, and unpacked from the vaults across the street.

Its unique dynamism is fire: In 2,400-degree furnaces, students and renowned artists alike will manipulate and blow molten gobs in glass-walled studios visible to visitors. And in a half-dozen, specially equipped classrooms on the main and lower levels, techniques such as flamework, stained glass, slumping, casting, and sandblasting will be taught to adults and children.

The vibrancy of making glass is complemented by serenity. Given the park-like setting they had to work with, architects Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa aimed to dissolve the barriers between inside and out. That meant creating lovely exterior views visible from nearly every spot in the building and incorporating three courtyards as well as a contemplative sitting room.

[...]

The $30 million pavilion was paid for by a $60 million fund-raising campaign, the largest in the city’s history, led for three years by Waterville art lovers Georgia and David Welles, who were also largely responsible for the museum’s sculpture garden.

“I don’t like to do it,” Mrs. Welles told The Blade for a March article, speaking about asking people for money.

“I’ve done it a lot, but it’s something you need to do.”

The Glass Pavilion will surely elevate the city’s reputation as a glass center, which dates to August, 1888, when Toledoans turned out with fanfare to welcome 250 New England glass workers and their families at the train station.

They would work at the new glass factory built by young Edward Drummond Libbey, who was joined in a few years by glass blower and technological wizard Michael Owens.

The pair had extraordinary synergy and vision and led the area, which once had 70 glass companies, to world prominence.

Doonesbury: Summer dreams.

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 7:39 AM  

So Ned Lamont won the Connecticut Democratic senate primary, Joe Lieberman is running as an independent, and the Republicans are rallying to Lieberman and dissing their own nominee, Alan Schlesinger. (That last move is not altogether surprising; even the GOP knows that running a winger in Connecticut is suicidal, and they have no scruples when it comes to winning and losing.)

But, as TPM Reader DK points out, there are a lot of other Senate races out there that deserve attention, especially the races where the Democrats have a chance of beating a Republican and getting close to winning the majority in the Senate. The race in Virgina, thanks to Sen. Allen showing his true nature last week, caught the headlines, but for all the wrong reasons. If Jim Webb is to win in Virginia, he has to show that he is more than just the candidate who knows how to watch what he says on the stump.

And more importantly, there are some competitive races out there where the Democratic incumbent is the one in trouble. Maria Cantwell in Washington is in a close race, as is Debbie Stabenow in Michigan. In other races where the Democrats have been seen as within striking distance -- Tennessee and Missouri, for example -- the GOP is mounting their standard scorched-earth campaign, calling out their orc-like minions of wingnuts for voter registration drives at churches and publishing "non-partisan" voter guides; "non-partisan" to the degree where they say "Candidate X is pro-life; Candidate Y eats stem cells on a soda cracker."

The races that aren't getting the media frenzy matter are just as important, if not more so, than the Senate race in Connecticut. If Lamont wins -- and that isn't a sure thing -- it will not change the number of Democrats in the minority, and if Lieberman wins, the Lamont campaign will take on all the quixotic pallor of the Howard Dean candidacy after Iowa and provide the punditocracy with talking points to beat up on the idea of "netroots." Meanwhile the races that could change the face of the Senate and give the Democrats a majority are gasping for air.

I know it's a lot to ask, but if progressives hope to make the most of the country's disaffection with Bush and the GOP, they'll have to move beyond the flash and bang of the Connecticut race and look to the ones where plain old shoeleather campaigning and retail politicking will make the difference.

Cal Thomas chastises Muslims for cutting and pasting the Koran for their extremist purposes.

"This kind of tactic of taking verses out of context can be used against any religious faith," says Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic civil-rights and advocacy group. "It can and has been used against the Bible and has been used against the Koran."

"These verses deal with the real experience of the Muslim community at the time when they were under attack. It's not a general injunction to go out and harm people. The only people who take it that way are those who want to promote hostility toward Islam and Muslims. They would object if the same thing were done to their faith."

Yes, but virtually all Christians and Jews denounce the infinitesimal few who claim to be Jewish or Christian and use their "holy books" to justify violence against others as a direct command from God.

[...]

Americans must see past their natural reluctance to paint all members of a group with a broad brush and realize our failure to act now against this clear and present danger...

Unless, of course, you're quoting Leviticus and bashing the queers. Then all bets are off.

Glenn Greenwald has a very detailed analysis of the ruling by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor that held that warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional.

This is not the most scholarly opinion ever. It has argumentative holes in it in several important places. But it is correct in its result and it is an enormous victory for the rule of law. It took real courage for Judge Diggs Taylor to issue this Opinion and Order -- it is hard to overstate how much courage it took. It will obviously be appealed. But as of right now, it is illegal, according to this federal court, for the Bush administration to continue to implement its "Terrorist Surveillance Program," and since it is grounded in constitutional conclusions, nothing -- such as Arlen Specter's dreaded bill -- could change that.

Mr. Greenwald also has a wrap-up of the right-wing reaction that runs the gamut from liberal-bashing to calls for the judge's assassination.

...so far we have - (1) the Judge was appointed by Jimmy Carter; (2) the Judge is African-American and works on "civil rights" matters; (3) she is insane; (4) she does not take terrorism seriously; (5) this is a victory for the terrorists; (6) President Bush should defy the Order. That's a predictable enough beginning, but the smear machine is going to have to work a little harder, because that is not all that impressive of an attack so far. I recommend the Free Press profile -- read that and decide if her abilities and fairness can be legitimately demonized.

Legitimate or not, the righties will demonize her no matter what. They can't do anything else. The Party of Smaller Government, More Freedom, and the Rule of Law can't win on points, legal or otherwise, so they resort to the tactic they're best at: they throw a tantrum.

This case will end up at the Supreme Court. The way the timing of these things work means that it will probably be heard just as the Bush administration is packing up to leave town. It would be a fitting and just coda for the folks who came in at the behest of the Court should go out with another ruling from the Court.

What outrageousness -- or any other fascination -- is there to report this week from The Liberal Coalition?

Storyblogging, AIDSblogging, and more from Coturnix.

Natalie promotes the music of Neil Young.

archy is loaded for bear.

Bark Bark Woof Woof with a blast from the past.

blogAmY prepares for a trip.

Moi at bloggg might have some travel advice for Amy.

Collective Sigh is back and on the case of big Katrina contractors.

NTodd takes a turn at sports reporting from Oakland.

Echidne on Ann Coulter vs. Shakespeare's Sister.

FDL on how to win.

First Draft reports on how the government is spending our money to fight "terrorists."

Happy Furry Puppy backs away from the table.

iddybud on the danger of fundamentalism.

Left Is Right lists the good, the bad, and more.

Lefty begins a week of reviewing Ait/PlanetLar, the HBO of comics.

Liberty Street on planning for failure in Iraq.

Make Me a Commentator on the passion of moderation.

Musing's musings on one young man choosing his health care.

Pen-Elayne frames the question: can a car dealer be held accountable for taking license with her custom?

Rook rants about I.E.

rubber hose continues his tour of Latvia.

Scrutiny Hooligans on thirst.

Sooner Thought reports the Democrats are suddenly popular on K Street.

Speedkill on why we really went into Iraq.

Steve Gilliard is serving lunch.

Glenstein guest-posts at T. Rex's Guide to Life on the NSA ruling.

The Invisible Library on how religion is doing here in America.

WTF Is It Now?? on the smell of fear.

The Yellow Doggerel Democrat shines a light -- and a neon one at that -- on a local bible story.

Take the creative quiz at ...You Are A Tree.

Don't try this at home.

Snowball is on the phone.

He wants to talk to Boatboy, too.

From the AP:

A federal judge ruled Thursday that the government's warrantless wiretapping program is unconstitutional and ordered an immediate halt to it.

U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor in Detroit became the first judge to strike down the National Security Agency's program, which she says violates the rights to free speech and privacy.

Cue the right-wing noise machine against activist judges who have the unmitigated temerity to actually hold the government accountable for their actions.

When will these unelected jurists, accountable to no one but the law, learn that the president is never wrong?

From the New York Times:

President Bush made clear in a private meeting this week that he was concerned about the lack of progress in Iraq and frustrated that the new Iraqi government — and the Iraqi people — had not shown greater public support for the American mission, participants in the meeting said Tuesday.

Those who attended a Monday lunch at the Pentagon that included the president’s war cabinet and several outside experts said Mr. Bush carefully avoided expressing a clear personal view of the new prime minister of Iraq, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

But in what participants described as a telling line of questioning, Mr. Bush did ask each of the academic experts for their assessment of the prime minister’s effectiveness.

“I sensed a frustration with the lack of progress on the bigger picture of Iraq generally — that we continue to lose a lot of lives, it continues to sap our budget,” said one person who attended the meeting. “The president wants the people in Iraq to get more on board to bring success.”

Jeez, all we wanted to do was bring them white bread, Wal-Mart, and Jesus. So why do they insist on trying to kill us?

Next time, they can overthrow their own dictator. That'll teach 'em.

When the Dean of the Washington punditocracy, David Broder, determines that the Republicans are in deep doo-doo, it must be so.

I had dinner one night with a group of Ohio Republicans, all with many years of experience in state politics and none directly engaged in this year's gubernatorial race. One of them said, "I'm afraid this could be another 1982," a year when recession pushed unemployment to 15 percent and cost the Republicans the governorship. Another said, "I'd settle right now for another 1982. I'm afraid it will be another 1974," the year of the Watergate election, when Democrats swept everything in sight.

[...]

The reason was explained in blunt terms by the Republican governor of one of the states where a congressman of his party is struggling for statewide office. "What has this Congress done that anyone should applaud?" he asked scornfully. "Nothing on immigration, nothing on health care, nothing on energy -- and nothing on the war. They deserve a good kick in the pants, and that's what they're going to get."

A conservative friend dismissed the Democratic hopes of having another sweep like the 1994 Republican "revolution" by saying, "Sorry, it's not going to be 1994 again." He may be right -- but not in the way he thinks.

This little bit of movie news caught my eye:

Johnny Depp is going from woozy buccaneer to murderous barber.

Depp is reuniting with director Tim Burton ("Charlie and the Chocolate Factory") to play the title role in a film adaptation of Stephen Sondheim's musical "Sweeney Todd," about a 19th-century barber seeking bloody revenge over his wrongful imprisonment.

The star of "Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest," this year's biggest hit with a domestic gross of $400 million, is expected to do his own singing, said Marvin Levy, spokesman for DreamWorks, which is co-producing "Sweeney Todd" with Warner Bros.

I think Johnny Depp would be perfect for the part; he's already proven to be adept in handling sharp objects.

Bit of theatre trivia; the musical Sweeney Todd is based on the 19th melodrama Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street by George Dibdin-Pitt (1799-1855). The musical is great, but the original play is pretty good too, full of the grand guignol stuff that thrilled Victorian England.

PS: Any suggestions for who should play Mrs. Lovett, the maker of "the worst pies in London," played to perfection by Angela Lansbury in the original cast? Just as long as it's not Madonna...

Ah, the cable news gods are smiling on their minions.

Now that there's a cease-fire in Lebanon, the cable news channels are desperate for something to capture the imagination...

Jon Benet!

It's summer, so it's about time for another Missing White Girl story, and when you don't have a runaway bride calling from the Circle K in Albuquerque or numerous teenage boys in handcuffs in Aruba, there always another rehash of the world's most famous cold case. Except that this time they have a suspect who has allegedly confessed to killing the six-year-old beauty queen in Boulder. Break out the special music and dust off the old videos.

Hezbollah and Iraq are so last week's news.

Via John at archy, Men's Health magazine has the list of the 100 angriest cities in America. Number 1 is Orlando, Florida; in fact, four of the top ten are in Florida, but among the ten are places you don't usually associate with pissed-off people; Wilmington, Delaware? Even the name sounds relaxed.

What's also interesting is that the mix seems pretty even between red and blue states, but it looks like a lot of the top-tier cities are in Republican states. Heck, you'd think they'd be happy, what with majorities in both the House and Senate and their guy in the White House. Maybe not.

It's also interesting to note that the further down the list you go -- i.e. the happier people are -- the further north you go geographically. Of the last twenty-five cities on the list, twelve of them are famous (or infamous) for their Winters. Maybe that means that when the cold settles in, people just chill out.

Where does your town show up on this list, if at all?

Sen. George Allen still keeps piling it up trying to explain exactly what he meant.

The question was fiercely debated all day: Was "Macaca," which literally means a genus of monkey, a deliberate racist epithet or a weird ad-libbed word with no meaning? And what was Allen trying to say by singling out the young man of Indian descent?

[...]

In a statement released Tuesday afternoon, Allen (R-Va.) said his remarks Friday to S.R. Sidarth, who at the time was videotaping an Allen campaign event on Webb's behalf, "have been greatly misunderstood by members of the media." He said Monday that "Macaca" was a play on "Mohawk," a nickname given to Sidarth by the Allen campaign because of his hairstyle. In Tuesday's statement, Allen said he "made up a nickname for the cameraman, which was in no way intended to be racially derogatory. Any insinuations to the contrary are completely false."

It's also been noted that the word could also be construed as something a little scatalogical:

According to two Republicans who heard the word used, "macaca" was a mash-up of "Mohawk," referring to Sidarth's distinctive hair, and "caca," Spanish slang for excrement, or "shit."

Said one Republican close to the campaign: "In other words, he was a shit-head, an annoyance." Allen, according to Republicans, heard members of his traveling entourage and Virginia Republicans use the phrase and picked it up.

It was the first word that came to his mind when he spied Sidarth at the weekend's event, according to Republicans who have been briefed on Allen's version of the event.

Okay, so they're saying he wasn't being racist. Just earthy.

Let's get a few things straight. One, Mr. Sidarth's haircut isn't a mohawk or even a mullet. (Trust me, I've lived in parts of the country where everybody wore mullets, including the women.) Two, if Mr. Allen was making up a word, isn't it the most amazing coincidence that he pulls a word out of his, uh, hat that just happens to be the North African equivalent for "monkey," and we're not talking Cheetah? And since he grew up speaking French, which he learned from his Tunisian mother -- and Tunis is in North Africa -- it's a little bit like Jackie Mason saying he doesn't know the meaning of the word "putz."

You'd think that someone as politically savvy as George Allen would know that there's no point in trying to put a polish on a turd.

Two little news items brought back some names from the past.

First, Jack Carter, son of the former president, won the Democratic primary in Nevada to run against incumbent James Ensign. It'll be a tough race; Ensign is entrenched and probably safe, but it'll be interesting to see how Mr. Carter does and if the rule of sequels holds true for politicians as it does for films. Historically, descendants of presidents have rarely been as successful as their ancestors, with the notable exception of Franklin Roosevelt, who was a cousin of Theodore Roosevelt. Certainly the current example in the White House proves the rule.

Second, best wishes for a healthy and speedy recovery to Gerald Ford. The former president was admitted to the Mayo Clinic for tests. I've always had soft spot for Mr. Ford, probably because he was such a relief after Nixon. I didn't vote for him in 1976, but, as Archie Bunker once noted, "He did a pretty good job for a president that nobody voted for." Get well soon, Jerry.

The echoes of the Terri Schiavo case are still being heard here in Florida. Michael Schiavo is fighting back against the politicians in Florida who exploited his wife for their own political gain, and doing a little politicking of his own.

CLEARWATER, Fla. — The curtains are still drawn tight at Michael Schiavo’s home on a quiet cul-de-sac here, and in some ways he remains as private and unknowable as when his wife Terri was the focus of a fervent national debate last year about life and death.

Yet Mr. Schiavo, who won a scorching legal battle to remove his brain-damaged wife’s feeding tube, also remains furious at lawmakers in Tallahassee and Washington who intervened in the case. Hence the creation last winter of TerriPAC, a federal political action committee aimed against politicians who tried to stop Ms. Schiavo’s death, and the debut of Mr. Schiavo, a newly remarried, self-described normal guy, as a political weapon in this year’s midterm elections.

[...]

Mr. Schiavo’s PAC has made no direct solicitations, but it has raised more than $26,000 in eight months, mostly in contributions of $100 or less made through its Web site, www.terripac.com. The committee is nearly broke at the moment, having contributed a total $4,000 to five Democratic candidates in Florida, Colorado and Texas and spent most of the rest on travel, Web site design and production of a video to help with fund-raising down the road.

“We are not a big financially powerful PAC yet,” said Derek Newton, a Democratic consultant in Miami who sold Mr. Schiavo on the PAC and now serves as its director. “We are just looking at what makes sense and how we can do it.”

[...]

Mr. Schiavo, who switched his voter registration to Democrat from Republican last year, said people had asked him repeatedly to run for office after his wife’s death.

But while the prospect holds allure, he said he was content with a lower-key role for now. He married Jodi Centonze, whom he met and started dating three years after Ms. Schiavo’s collapse, in January. He works three 12-hour shifts a week as a nursing supervisor at the Pinellas County Jail and helps raise his children, Olivia, 3, and Nicholas, 2.

“Maybe down the road,” he said of becoming a political candidate. “Maybe when everybody understands and everything is fixed.”

Those crazy Christianists are getting their mojo going, according to John Sugg at AlerNet.

Two really devilish guys materialized in Toccoa, Ga., last month to harangue 600 true believers on the gospel of a thoroughly theocratic America. Along with lesser lights of the religious far right who spoke at American Vision's "Worldview Super Conference 2006," Herb Titus and Gary North called for nothing short of the overthrow of the United States of America.

Titus and North aren't household names. But Titus, former dean of TV preacher Pat Robertson's Regent University law school, has led the legal battle to plant the Ten Commandants in county courthouses across the nation. North, an apostle of the creed called Christian Reconstructionism, is one of the most influential elders of American fundamentalism.

"I don't want to capture their (mainstream Americans') system. I want to replace it," fumed North to a cheering audience. North has called for the stoning of gays and nonbelievers (rocks are cheap and plentiful, he has observed). Both friends and foes label him "Scary Gary."

[...]

Titus' and North's speeches, laced with conspiracy theories about the Rockefellers and the Trilateral Commission, were more Leninist than Christian in the tactics proposed -- as in their vision to use freedom to destroy the freedom of others. That's not surprising -- the founder of Christian Reconstruction, the late fringe Calvinist theologian Rousas J. Rushdoony, railed against the "heresy" of democracy.

Some of their more interesting views include:

Six-day, "young earth" creationism is the only acceptable doctrine for Christians. Even "intelligent design" or "old earth" creationism are compromises with evil secularism.

Public education is satanic and must be destroyed.

The First Amendment was intended to keep the federal government from imposing a national religion, but states should be free to foster a religious creed. (Several states did that during the colonial period and the nation's early days, a model the Reconstructionists want to emulate.)

The Founding Fathers intended to protect only the liberties of the established ultra-conservative denominations of that time. Expanding the list to include "liberal" Protestant denominations, much less Catholics, Jews and (gasp!) atheists, is a corruption of the Founders' intent.

Lest you think that these folks are so far out of the mainstream that they would scare off any religious figure with any stature higher than Fred Phelps, think again.

James Dobson's Focus on the Family is now selling DeMar's book, America's Christian Heritage. Dobson himself has a warm relationship with many in the movement, and he has admitted voting for Reconstructionist presidential candidate Howard Phillips in 1996.

TV preacher Robertson has mentioned reading North's writings, and he has hired Reconstructionists as professors at Regent University. Jerry Falwell employs Reconstructionists to teach at Liberty University. Roger Schultz, the chair of Liberty's History Department, writes regularly for Faith for all of Life, the leading Reconstructionist journal.

Southern Baptist Bruce N. Shortt is aggressively pushing his denomination to officially repudiate public education and call on Southern Baptists to withdraw their children from public schools. Shortt's vicious book, The Harsh Truth about Public Schools, was published by the Reconstructionist Chalcedon Foundation.

There are big theological differences between the Religious Right's generals and the Reconstructionists. Traditional Christian theology teaches that history will muddle along until Jesus' Second Coming. That teaching is tough to turn into a political movement. Reconstructionists preach that the nation and the world must come under Christian "dominion" (as they define it) before Christ's return -- a wonderful theology to promote global conquest.

In short, Dobson, Robertson, Falwell and the Southern Baptist Convention (the nation's largest Protestant denomination) may not agree with everything the Reconstructionists advocate, but they sure don't seem to mind hanging out with this openly theocratic, anti-democratic crowd.

Dobson, Robertson, and Falwell are scary in and of themselves, but they also have their hands in the pockets of a lot of people, and they're also on the speed-dial of folks like Karl Rove and Dick Cheney.

School's already started here in South Florida. (Can you believe it? When I was a kid, school didn't start until the Tuesday after Labor Day.) Anyway, that got me to thinking about teachers. So, with that in mind:

Who was your most influential teacher, and why?

You don't have to name names.

The Democrats are betting that the answer to a simple question -- Do You Feel Safer? -- will pay off for them.

Seeking to counter White House efforts to turn the reported terrorist plot in Britain to Republican advantage, Democrats are using the arrests of the suspects to try to show Americans how the war in Iraq has fueled Islamic radicalism and distracted Mr. Bush and the Republican Congress from shoring up security at home. They say they intend to drive that message home as the nation observes the coming anniversaries of Hurricane Katrina and the Sept. 11 attacks.

But they are not waiting. A video Monday on the Web site of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee showed footage of Osama bin Laden, referred to an increase in terror attacks, highlighted illegal immigration and pointed out the nuclear aspirations of Iran and North Korea.

“Feel safer?” it concludes. “Vote for change.”

[...]

Those statements and others challenging Republicans head-on over antiterror initiatives are a sharp contrast to Democrats’ actions in the two previous elections, when they stumbled in the face of Republican efforts to paint them as weak. Democrats say polls show that Republicans and Mr. Bush have lost stature on the subject on terrorism as Americans have become disillusioned with the war in Iraq. They also believe that more voters are able to separate the war from efforts to protect the nation against terror attacks.

“During the 2002 and 2004 elections, Republicans tried to sow fear in the American public by claiming that they were the only ones who could keep America safe,” Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic leader, said in an e-mail message to supporters. “This from the same crowd that has driven Iraq to the brink of disaster, left Osama Bin Laden on the loose to attack again and continues to ignore our security needs at home.”

The Republicans will come back with a lot of bluster and strawmen. The president is already at it with his attacks on the mythical "some people," as if there was a coeterie of Democrats who really wish we weren't strong in our defense. But he can't name them because there aren't any, and so far what we've gotten from the Bushies is a lot of big talk, a failure to implement the 9/11 commission recommendations, the closure of the CIA office that was dedicated to the pursuit of Osama bin Laden, a budgetary cutback in airport security, no increase in rail or port security, and the conflation of Iraq and terrorists with explosive hair gel.

It's interesting to see the Democrats use one of Karl Rove's famous techniques -- turning your one of your opponent's alleged strengths into their worst nightmare -- to their own advantage. How about that for karma?

Cuban TV showed Fidel Castro in a hospital bed talking to visitors.

Castro appeared tired and pale, yet alert in the videotaped encounter, speaking quietly but clearly enjoying himself as he chatted with Chavez, his close friend and political ally. Acting president Raul Castro was also present for the encounter on his brother's 80th birthday.

As the men bantered back and forth, Castro's voice was inaudible. He was later shown in animated conversation with Chavez, but music played over his words.

I still say he's been dead for a couple of weeks (a la Weekend at Bernie's) but they're trying to let the people know slowly.

Maybe they should show the tape to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist. After all, he's well-known for diagnosing people via video tape and pronouncing them to be in excellent health.

Sen. George Allen (R-VA) may win re-election, but he can basically kiss off any chance he has for the White House thanks to his caught-on-tape gaffe.

At a campaign rally in southwest Virginia on Friday, Allen repeatedly called a volunteer for Democrat James Webb "macaca." During the speech in Breaks, near the Kentucky border, Allen began by saying that he was "going to run this campaign on positive, constructive ideas" and then pointed at S.R. Sidarth in the crowd.

"This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, macaca, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent. He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great," Allen said, as his supporters began to laugh. After saying that Webb was raising money in California with a "bunch of Hollywood movie moguls," Allen said, "Let's give a welcome to macaca, here. Welcome to America and the real world of Virginia." Allen then began talking about the "war on terror."

Depending on how it is spelled, the word macaca could mean either a monkey that inhabits the Eastern Hemisphere or a town in South Africa. In some European cultures, macaca is also considered a racial slur against African immigrants, according to several Web sites that track ethnic slurs.

[...]

Reached Monday evening, Allen said that the word had no derogatory meaning for him and that he was sorry. "I would never want to demean him as an individual. I do apologize if he's offended by that. That was no way the point."

I have a feeling that if the Webb campaign sent out a black campaign staffer to video the Allen events and Mr. Allen said, "This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, sambo, or whatever his name is. He's with my opponent," the race (pun intended) would be over. And note the use of the conditional case in Mr. Allen's apology: "if he's offended by that." That means that Mr. Allen is only sorry if Mr. Sidarth was offended. Otherwise, all bets are off.

I'll take Sen. Allen at his word that he didn't intend to demean Mr. Sidarth as an individual, but that doesn't rule out the possibility that he sees someone with dark skin and comes up with a racial slur without even thinking about it. That's not uncommon. I grew up knowing people who would use a racial or ethnic term like "colored," "darkie," "camel jockey," or even the occasional N-word without missing a beat. Most of them were sophisitcated, well-off people who would be mortified if they thought they were causing offense; it was how they were brought up. I'm willing to give Sen. Allen the benefit of the doubt that he was not intentionally singling out Mr. Sidarth for his ethnic background; he was just brought up that way and doesn't know any better.

That may be his excuse, and it may even work in his Senate campaign, although I think Virginia is becoming a tad more enlightened than Mr. Allen thinks (except in one notable area). But if Mr. Allen has any hopes of running for the White House, this tape plus his affinity for Confederate memorabilia will come back to haunt him. Old times there are not forgotten.

The right wing seems to be stuck in a time warp. They think it's 1972, complete with cheap gas, big gas-guzzling cars, and a Democratic Party populated with long-haired hippie types who dodged the draft and are blazing doobies as they listen to their Todd Rundgren albums. And so they come up with opinion pieces like this from Jonah Goldberg, who seems to be gleefully predicting the demise of the Democrats in the mid-term election because they're still stuck on George McGovern.

Mr. Goldberg was all of three years old when Mr. McGovern was the Democratic nominee in 1972, so he really doesn't know what he's talking about other than what he's read in the back issues of the National Review that his mother used to line his crib. He forgets that Sen. McGovern, a decorated veteran of World War II, wasn't just "anti-war;" he was against the fruitless and costly war in Vietnam and was campaigning against the re-election of a president who was leading a corrupt, venal, and criminal administration that used lies, leaks, and extra-legal means to stay in power and demonize their enemies. Mr. Goldberg forgets -- or never knew -- that the political divisiveness in America in 1972 wasn't caused by a bunch of peaceniks just back from Woodstock but by a calculated manipulation of fear and loathing by the vice president and his allies who attacked the mainstream media for daring to question the administration; words like "treasonous" and "unAmerican" were bandied about in the right-wing press and attached to anyone who didn't support the war.

George McGovern lost the 1972 election in a landslide against an administration of smug perjurors who, less than two years later, would be making plea bargains with the special prosecutor. The war in Vietnam would be brought to a shuddering end by a peace treaty negotiated with distrustful adversaries who simply waited until the American forces left and then overtook the rickety and corrupt puppet government we set up on our way out. Thirty years later we have full diplomatic relations with the government that we sacrificed over 58,000 lives to prevent from coming into existence, and they happily sell us cheap shoes and bicycles.

Unlike Mr. Goldberg and the others on the right, we Democrats learned the lessons of Vietnam. We learned that going to war for a domestic political cause leads to disaster, that it weakens us in the eyes of the world, and creates ten times as many enemies and insurgents than it kills. We learned that winning the hearts and minds of the oppressed people who, in the words of George W. Bush, "crave freedom" isn't done at the behest of the 82nd Airborne; their job is to kill people and conquer territory, not teach a course in Jeffersonian democracy. We learned that the best way to prevent terrorism was not to act like the schoolyard bully, daring every other kid on the block to take him on, but to understand the obligation of the old saying that with great wealth and power comes great responsibility, to tread lightly in pursuit of our nation's goals, and to remember that just because our system works here, the American system isn't a one-size-fits-all. As much as we hate to admit it, not everybody in the world is enraptured by capitalism and Britney Spears.

The Democrats of 2006 are not the "anti-war" party; they are the "anti-this-stupid-and-unjustified-war" party. They give no ground to anyone in terms of being strong in defense of this nation and they stand ready to repel any form of terrorism from any quarter, including domestic terrorists like those who would bomb abortion clincs or beat up queers. No Democrat of any standing has ever questioned our need to protect ourselves and our way of life, nor has anyone ever said that using whatever legal means that are necessary to defend ourselves against terrorists is wrong. If anything, it shows you how insidious the right wing has become in that anyone would ever have to make that statement.

Using the victory of Ned Lamont in the Connecticut senate primary as a talking point for the "New McGovernite" label by the GOP proves that they learned nothing from the war in Vietnam. On top of repeating the same mistakes of forty years ago in fighting the war, they are repeating the same talking points of Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew, and polarizing the country in the process that makes it hard for me to believe that it isn't 1972 all over again. (Would that it was; gas was 35 cents a gallon, I had a cherry 1965 Mustang 2+2 fastback, and I weighed about 80 pounds less than I do now.) But unless he's got a strange hankering for 8-tracks and polyester, it's time for Mr. Goldberg and his pals to catch up with the rest of us and realize that they're the ones who are stuck in the past, not us.

Following up on yesterday's piece from the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, another editorial by one of those big-city elite newspapers comes out against using terror for political gain.

The terrorists aren’t attacking one political party. They are attacking all of us. Politicians can, and should, debate our strategy against terrorists and the course of the war in Iraq. But questioning each other’s patriotism or resolve against terrorists should be out of bounds. It is unnecessary and divisive. And it is, quite simply, a diversionary tactic. Members of both parties have repeatedly shown by their votes strong support for the war against terror.

But even as British police were arresting some of the terror plot suspects, Vice President Dick Cheney was sounding off on Democratic Sen. Joe Lieberman’s primary defeat by a businessman who successfully made opposition to the Iraq war the centerpiece of his campaign. It shows “the direction the party appears to be heading,” Cheney said. “What is particularly disturbing about it is from the standpoint of our adversaries. ... They are betting on the proposition that ultimately they can break the will of the American people in our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.” Voting against Lieberman, he said, is encouraging “the al Qaida types.”

[...]

Thomas Kean, the Republican who chaired the nation’s 9/11 commission, offered this thought on Thursday: “It shouldn’t be a political issue. It should be something that everybody supports.”

It should. And we believe that most politicians do. Let’s get on with strengthening our defenses and stopping the terrorists. The voters know the difference between our Iraq war problems and the overall effort against terror. Politicians would be wise to remember that.

Well, isn't Fayetteville, North Carolina, a pretty big town?

(HT to AMERICAblog.)

Stop The Presses: Did the New York Times deliberately hold the N.S.A. wiretap story so as not to have an impact on the 2004 election?

THE NEW YORK TIMES’S Dec. 16 article that disclosed the Bush administration’s warrantless eavesdropping has led to an important public debate about the once-secret program. And the decision to write about the program in the face of White House pressure deserved even more praise than I gave it in a January column, which focused on the paper’s inadequate explanation of why it had “delayed publication for a year.”

The article, written by James Risen and Eric Lichtblau, has been honored with a Pulitzer and other journalistic prizes. But contradictory post-publication comments by Times editors and others about just how long the article was held have left me increasingly concerned about one key question: Did The Times mislead readers by stating that any delay in publication came after the Nov. 2, 2004, presidential election?

In my January column, in which I refused to rely on anonymous sources, I noted that I was left “puzzled” by the election question. But I have now learned from Bill Keller, the executive editor, that The Times delayed publication of drafts of the eavesdropping article before the 2004 election. This revelation confirms what anonymous sources had told other publications such as The Los Angeles Times and The New York Observer in December.

A number of readers critical of the Bush administration have remained particularly suspicious of the article’s assertion that the publication delay dated back only “a year” to Dec. 16, 2004. They contend that pre-election disclosure of the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping could have changed the outcome of the election.

Since the Times article appeared, I have grown increasingly intrigued by changes in the way the delay has been described in the paper and in comments by Mr. Keller. A background paragraph in a follow-up article on Dec. 31 said, “The administration first learned that The New York Times had obtained information about the secret eavesdropping program more than a year ago.” Mr. Keller also began using the “more than a year” language.

My decision to take another look at the extent of the delay came after reading Mr. Keller’s response to an online question in April during “Talk to the Newsroom,” a feature on nytimes.com. Eric Sullivan, from Waunakee, Wis., commented: “I’d like to know why you sat on the N.S.A. story. You probably changed the course of an election and likely history to come.”

Mr. Keller’s rather matter-of-fact acceptance of Mr. Sullivan’s presumptions caught my eye: “Whether publishing earlier would have influenced the 2004 election is, I think, hard to say. Judging from the public reaction to the N.S.A. eavesdropping reflected in various polls, one could ask whether earlier disclosure might have helped President Bush more than hurt.”

[...]

So why did the Dec. 16 article say The Times had “delayed publication for a year,” specifically ruling out the possibility that the story had been held prior to the Nov. 2 election? “It was probably inelegant wording,” Mr. Keller said, who added later, “I don’t know what was in my head at the time.”

Were the wording and the sensitivity of the election-day timing issue discussed internally? “I don’t remember,” Mr. Keller said in an interview. He does remember discussing that “I wanted to own up to holding it.” And The Times does deserve credit for disclosing that it had held the story.

It was more than inelegant, however, to report flatly that the delay had lasted “a year.” Characterizing it as “more than a year,” as Mr. Keller and others later did, would have been technically accurate. But that phrase would have represented a fuzziness that Times readers shouldn’t have to put up with when a hotly contested presidential election is involved.

Given the importance of this otherwise outstanding article on warrantless eavesdropping — and now the confirmation of pre-election decisions to delay publication — The Times owes it to readers to set the official record straight.

Gross Miscalculation: The Minneapolis Star-Tribune weighs in on the Lieberman defeat.

Someday Americans will know for sure whether Sen. Joseph Lieberman's primary defeat last week was a turning point in American attitudes toward Iraq or just a footnote in Connecticut history. But it's plain that the Bush administration has drawn its own conclusions and regards the election as an important and worrisome vote of no-confidence in its own foreign policy.

Exhibit A is the astonishing behavior of Dick Cheney. The normally reclusive vice president took time off from vacation in Wyoming to conduct a conference call with reporters on Wednesday and accuse Connecticut Democrats of subverting national security and giving comfort to "Al-Qaida types."

It's bizarre enough that a sitting vice president would decide to meddle in the politics of the opposition party and try to tell Democrats how to choose their own candidate for U.S. Senate. But it's downright outrageous that Cheney would yet again try to draw misleading parallels between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaida. Time and again White House officials have backed off that assertion when challenged frontally -- only to find some new way to insinuate it again a day or a week later. For the record, one investigation after another has shown that Saddam regarded Osama bin Laden as a rival, not an ally, and that Al-Qaida took root in Iraq only after the U.S. invasion created fertile soil for terrorists there.

If Ned Lamont's victory does have any lasting significance -- and the Karl Rove operation plainly believes it does -- it's precisely because it was a referendum on the Bush policy toward Iraq.

Americans now understand that the invasion of Iraq was not crucial to the fight against Al-Qaida; it was a terrible and costly distraction from it. They understand that the Bush administration has made a gross miscalculation about the way to advance democracy and stability in the Middle East -- just ask the Lebanese and the Israelis, or the Egyptians or Iraqis, for that matter. They understand that U.S. policy in the Middle East is not sidelining radical Islam; it is driving the world's moderate Muslims away from the American sphere of influence. In a remarkable June survey by the Pew Global Attitudes Project, majorities in 10 out of 14 foreign countries -- including Great Britain -- said the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In moderate Muslim-majority nations such as Indonesia, Jordan and Turkey, favorable opinion toward the United States has dropped precipitously in the last five years.

Despite the fear-mongering of the Rove operation, no thinking American is calling for the United States to "cut and run" from Iraq -- not Ned Lamont, not Rep. John Murtha, not Tom Friedman. Instead they are trying hard to find a safe and honorable solution to the Iraq catastrophe -- something the administration seems incapable of.

Happy Birthday, You Old Fart: Carl Hiaasen takes a look at the birthday greetings sent to Fidel Castro.

Dear Comandante Castro,

Congratulations on reaching the milestone of your 80th birthday! All citizens of Venezuela are praying for your speedy recovery from surgery and are deeply honored to be subsidizing the Cuban government with billions of dollars from our oil profits.

And don't you worry about paying us back -- just get well soon. How we miss those enthralling five-hour speeches!

Your pal and admirer,

Hugo Chávez, Caracas

•

Hey Drooling Geezer,

I hope your beard catches fire when you blow out your birthday candles!!!!!

Anonymous, Miami

•

Dear President Castro,

Joyous birthday wishes from all your friends in the People's Republic of China!

We've been following with consternation the news of your recent medical setback and we implore you to keep a positive outlook. Why, compared to some of our great Chinese leaders, you're still a young whippersnapper.

So stop feeling sorry for yourself, hop out of that hospital bed and get back to the important work of spreading communism. Remember to exercise for a half-hour every day, avoid foods with trans-fatty acids and count your blessings -- heck, when Mao was your age, his prostate was the size of the Shanghewan Crater!

With deepest respect,

Hu Jintao, Beijing

•

Dear Senile Gasbag,

Do us all a big favor and choke on your birthday cupcake!!!!!

Anonymous, Hialeah

•

Dear Mr. Castro,

I received your recent request to be a featured senior citizen during the birthday-greeting segment of NBC's Today show. Unfortunately, we restrict our selections to folks who are at least 100 years old, and our research indicates that you are only 80.

Normally I'd suggest that you try writing us again in 20 years, but our sponsors -- the good folks at Smuckers -- say they'd prefer not to have their jellies and jams identified with a ruthless socialist dictator.

Thank you for your interest, and we are returning the cute snapshot of yourself denouncing imperialist Yanqui aggressors at the spring barbecue sponsored by the Central Committee.

With regrets,

Willard Scott, New York

•

Dear Jihadist Fidel,

Although we've never met, I feel a deep kinship because we have a common enemy, the infidel jackals of the United States.

As soon as you're feeling better, I'd be happy to come to Havana and share my strategy for a united global struggle.

As you might have heard, I've been living in frigid, guano-covered caves for the past five years, so Varadero Beach is looking pretty darn sweet to me.

Say the word, and I'm there.

Happy Birthday, and death to America!

Osama bin Laden, somewhere in Afghanistan

•

To the Commander in Chief of the Heroic Revolutionary Armed Forces or whatever:

Wish we could be in Cuba with you on your birthday . . . to watch you KEEL OVER LIKE A ROTTEN OAK TREE!!!!

Anonymous, Coral Gables

•

My dear Fidel,

On the historic occasion of your 80th birthday, I speak on behalf of all the Cuban people when I commend your brave, selfless and steadfast service to our great country!

It was with the utmost honor and humility that I agreed -- on a provisional basis, of course -- to take over your duties while you recover from this serious and unexpected illness.

However, we have not spoken or seen each other in two weeks, and as your devoted sibling it's only natural that I am increasingly curious about your medical progress. While I understand the need for privacy and calm at this critical time, a brief phone call or even a text message would be welcomed.

So, how are your bowels? Did you receive the lime Jell-O salad that I sent? As I recall, it's your favorite flavor.

You probably heard about your Range Rover, and let me assure you that it will be fully repaired before you get out of the hospital, as will the statue of our beloved comrade Che. I guess I dozed off at the wheel, but it will never, ever happen again.

Fidel, please don't worry about anything. The Revolution is rolling along smoothly in your provisional absence, and I'm keeping your office tidy and spotless, as you like it.

Your faithful brother,

Raúl Castro Ruz. Havana

P.S.: Where did you hide the rum?

Cruisin' and Playin' the Radio: The annual Woodward Avenue Dream Cruise is revving up for next Saturday in Detroit.

If people were rational, the Dream Cruise would be stalled.

After all, the state economy is stuck. Domestic carmakers are facing monumental challenges, and gas prices are boiling over like the radiator of a hot rod caught in the congestion already building along Woodward Avenue.

But none of that is deflating the return this week of the world's biggest one-day car event -- and the expected presence of more than 1 million Dream Cruise motorists and fans.

The Woodward Dream Cruise, always on the third Saturday in August, will unleash its 12th official incarnation Saturday. Of course, as known by anyone who lives or works in the Woodward corridor north of 8 Mile, the engine revving, lawn-chair sitting and car ogling are well under way.

And because people aren't rational -- not when it comes to indulging passions and showing them off -- the woes of Michigan's auto industry may be driving car collectors even deeper into nostalgia for a past when gas was cheap, American cars ruled and Detroit's assembly lines hummed all night long.

Take Patrick Murray, 46, of Royal Oak, who spent half a decade chasing his dream car and finally found it just three months ago.

Why buy a gas-guzzler now? Because, like the Matterhorn, the 1960 Chevrolet Impala was there.

Doonesbury: Dying in vain.

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 7:52 AM  

The right wing has learned a valuable lesson from the likes of Vladimir Lenin and Fidel Castro: The only way to stay in power is to claim that they are in perpetual danger of being overthrown by the government they overthrew. Therefore the Revolution, with all its rhetoric, stridency, and suppression of the populace, continues on...and on.

This permanent state of revolution ensures that the citizenry will always be reminded of who it was that saved them from their oppressors, all the while continuing the oppression; it justifies the "special circumstances" such as martial law and censorship. Long after the Tsar and his family have been slaughtered in a basement and long after Batista has fled to Spain, the Revolution must go on. Any sign of weakness or loss of resolve such as dissent or such luxuries as press freedom or opposition parties would only enable the enemies of the revolution. (In the case of Cuba, the United States has played the perfect foil for Castro's iron rule; the Yanquis are just over the horizon waiting to attack the moment they perceive that the Revolution has faltered. Therefore, all loyal Cubans must support Fidel and stay off the Internet.) Most importantly, it conveniently provides an excuse for never implementing the reforms or promises that they made when the Revolution began. The revolutionaries have become as embedded, corrupt, and oppressive as the rulers they overthrew. Pete Townshend was right: "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss."

The American conservative movement has followed the same revolutionary path. They overtook the Congress in 1994 and the White House in 2000. They proclaimed the death of Liberalism and triumphantly bestrode the capital like a Colossus, making the world safe for the unborn, the undead, and the ungay. Nothing could stop the march of the Right and the Righteous. But they spoke of dark conspiracies against them, casting suspicion on anyone who dared question them or their methods, and therefore demonized anyone who was not a True Believer as a traitor, a softie, a Liberal. They must be expunged.

The one difference between all the other Revolutions and this one was the tactics. It wasn't by guns or a long march; the conservative revolution began not with a bang but a whimper. As Thomas Frank notes in an op-ed in the New York Times, they did it by whining like spoiled children who can't believe that all the presents under the Christmas tree weren't meant for them. They instituted the world's first tantrumocarcy; if we don't get what we want, we'll throw a fit. And even when they had achieved all the power they could accumulate, they still act as if they are the insurgents in a perpetual struggle to win the hearts and minds of the citizens. They have no alternative because if they don't, they will actually have to produce results of such scale as to make the Revolution worth it, and that is an unachievable goal. It's a lot easier to chant a slogan and demonize your enemies than it is to actually do anything.

In the last few months we are seeing signs that the American people are getting tired of this childish behavior. They are tired of the excuses, the blaming, and the manipulation of reality that comes from the Bush administration and the GOP and they're ready for change. That's good news for Democrats...but only if they realize that once they win, they have to actually get to work.

Only in Wingnuttia could Republican Florida gubernatorial candidate Charlie Crist be compared to the chairman of the DNC. But Tom Gallagher seems to think they're joined at the hip. It's the latest bit of nutsery as his campaign for governor circles the drain.

A pair of top officials quit Tom Gallagher's campaign for governor Thursday, amid mounting pressure that he abandon his Republican primary race against front-runner Charlie Crist.

But Gallagher responded by lashing out at Crist, using his sharpest words of the campaign to call their Sept. 5 primary contest a "battle for the soul of the Republican Party."

He likened the more moderate Crist to national Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean, citing his support for same-sex civil unions.

"Florida Republicans do not share Howard Dean's values," said Gallagher, the state's chief financial officer, who was flanked by two-dozen campaign supporters during an appearance at Universal's Portofino Bay hotel near Orlando.

Say what you will about Florida politics, they're fun to watch.

Two, actually, on the impact of the terrorist arrests in London by Republicans:

"I'd rather be talking about this than all of the other things that Congress hasn't done well," one Republican congressional aide told AFP on condition of anonymity because of possible reprisals.

"Weeks before September 11th, this is going to play big," said another White House official, who also spoke on condition of not being named, adding that some Democratic candidates won't "look as appealing" under the circumstances.

Gee, and some people wonder why I'm slightly cynical.

(HT to Musing's musings.)

If you're stuck in a long line trying to go through airport security, whip out the laptop or BlackBerry and check out The Liberal Coalition.

Coturnix suggests a way to reset your internal clock.

Natalie is on the air.

archy has some mammoth news -- and hopes you'll join the hit parade.

Bark Bark Woof Woof looks at the Senate primary in Rhode Island.

blogAmY takes a quiz.

bloggg with a skeptical take on the British bombers.

Collective Sigh is not amused.

NTodd on securing our body fluids.

Echidne's guest-posters have been lighting up the sky with bloggy goodness. Start here and enjoy.

Christy at FDL asks the question that measures all administrations.

First Draft on civilian soldiers in Israel.

Happy Furry Puppy has a chat with a straw man.

iddybud asks if you're sick of failure yet.

Left is Right quotes Wesley Clark.

Lefty drinks the Kool-Aid.

Liberty Street serves Darwin a Turkey sandwich.

Make Me a Commentator is creeped out by Cal Thomas (but who isn't?).

Michael gets off a fine rant on the manipulation of terror for political gain.

Pen-Elayne takes us inside the art, craft, and genius of the comic artist -- and their reviewers.

Rook has some terse advice for a certain Senator.

rubber hose continues his tour of Central Europe.

Scrutiny Hooligans meets congressional candidate Heath Shuler.

Sooner Thought says it'd be hard to miss a terrorist wearing Chanel #5.

Speedkill on the missing Egyptians.

Steve Gilliard says Osama is laughing at us.

Kenneth finds that 30% of Americans don't remember when the day we'll never forget happened.

The Countess has some advice for Newt Gingrich.

The Invisible Library reviews a piece of spam.

WTF Is It Now?? on waking the beast.

The Yellow Doggerel Democrat on the threat that Clairol Herbal Essence constitutes to national security.

...You Are A Tree digs Abigail Washburn.

To quote the immortal Guy Marks: "Your red scarf matches your eyes."

Mr. Krugman looks at the nonsense behind the so-called "sensible" Joe Lieberman.

After Ned Lamont’s victory in Connecticut, I saw a number of commentaries describing Joe Lieberman not just as a “centrist” — a word that has come to mean “someone who makes excuses for the Bush administration” — but as “sensible.” But on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered sensible?

Take a look at Thomas Ricks’s “Fiasco,” the best account yet of how the U.S. occupation of Iraq was mismanaged. The prime villain in that book is Donald Rumsfeld, whose delusional thinking and penchant for power games undermined whatever chances for success the United States might have had. Then read Mr. Lieberman’s May 2004 op-ed article in The Wall Street Journal, “Let Us Have Faith,” in which he urged Mr. Rumsfeld not to resign over the Abu Ghraib scandal, because his removal “would delight foreign and domestic opponents of America’s presence in Iraq.”

And that’s just one example of Mr. Lieberman’s bad judgment. He has been wrong at every step of the march into the Iraq quagmire — all the while accusing anyone who disagreed with him of endangering national security. Again, on what planet would Mr. Lieberman be considered “sensible”? But I know the answer: on Planet Beltway.

Many of those lamenting Mr. Lieberman’s defeat claim that they fear a takeover of our political parties by extremists. But if political polarization were really their main concern, they’d be as exercised about the primary challenge from the right facing Lincoln Chafee as they are about Mr. Lieberman’s woes. In fact, however, the sound of national commentary on the Rhode Island race is that of crickets chirping.

So what’s really behind claims that Mr. Lieberman is sensible — and that those who voted against him aren’t? It’s the fact that many Washington insiders suffer from the same character flaw that caused Mr. Lieberman to lose Tuesday’s primary: an inability to admit mistakes.

[...]

There’s an overwhelming consensus among national security experts that the war in Iraq has undermined, not strengthened, the fight against terrorism. Yet yesterday Mr. Lieberman, sounding just like Dick Cheney — and acting as a propaganda tool for Republicans trying to Swift-boat the party of which he still claims to be a member — suggested that the changes in Iraq policy that Mr. Lamont wants would be “taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England.”

In other words, not only isn’t Mr. Lieberman sensible, he may be beyond redemption.

Watching TV

After a hard at the office, there's nothing like settling down for a re-run of The West Wing with Snowball. (He has a strange fascination for C.J.)

As Paul the Spud says:

Wingnuts, take note:

1. No one is suggesting that Bush and/or Blair somehow planned or masterminded the foiled terrorist plot.

2. Being angry that this plot was known about for several days, and extra safety steps were not taken in the U.S., is not a conspiracy theory. (Shakespeare's Sister: "Nor is considering the fact that their actions are a possible indication that this plot wasn't as potentially devastating as they're making it out to be.") It is perfectly understandable that the plot was not "announced" because they didn't want to "tip their hand." Fine. Just don't wait until after the attempt to start banning liquids and being more strict in safety measures.

3. It is not a conspiracy theory to suggest that opportunistic Republicans will now use this foiled plot to label Democrats "weak on terrorism," and to scare Americans into voting Republican. They've done it before, you know it and we know it.

Don't accuse us of conspiracy theories that don't exist.

Don't make us have to explain it again.

Raise shields, Ensign:

The U.S. government issued its highest terrorism alert ever for commercial flights from Britain to the United States early Thursday after a terror plot was disrupted in London, with a specific concern for tourist-filled flights to major U.S. cities.

[...]

It is the first time the red alert level in the Homeland Security warning system has been invoked, although there have been brief periods in the past when the orange level was applied. Homeland Security defines the red alert as designating a "severe risk of terrorist attacks."

A real threat worthy of the highest level of alertiness, or a ploy to remind the voters of who gets to play with the coloring book? You make the call.

Josh Marshall does a very nice job of trashing the Republican talking points on Joe Lieberman's loss.

Mike Allen has a piece in Time arguing that Republicans are thanking their lucky stars and Democrats are shaking in their boots because of the cudgel Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut has given them for November.

The piece runs down each of the key GOP players -- Mehlman, Cheney, Snow -- each bellowing out RNC talking points claiming that Lieberman's defeat means the Democratic party is beholden to the hard-left and ostrich-like isolationists.

Lieberman, as Mike explains, is now slated to become the martyr to isolationism whom Republicans will laud at every turn. "On television and in speeches in coming days," writes Allen, "party officials and strategists plan to talk about their respect for Lieberman as a distinguished public servant and argue that Lamont's victory represents the end of the long tradition of strong-on-national-defense Democratic leaders in the mold of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy."

This is sad.

Not because I think any of this is true or that it will resonate with the public. Not even because I'm surprised at how easily many of my press colleagues pen stories like this recounting GOP press offensives without questioning whether it really seems likely to succeed.

What's really sad is that the nexus of national press and political operative bigwigs really needs to get over itself a bit here. Because once they do, they may actually be able to get over Joe Lieberman.

[...]

The heart of the matter here is that everyone knows Joe in DC. They like him. They think he's a nice guy, which he is. His staff likes him, which also makes him seem like a nice guy. He's schmoozed the city for two decades.

But really he's just a pol who ignored his constituents, went into serious denial about a major foreign policy disaster, was more lockstep with the president's non-policy than many Republicans, and got bounced by his constituents.

That's politics. And that's accountability. And, really? It's not that big a deal.

Many Americans are not comfortable with the idea of just pulling out of Iraq. But the war is really unpopular. I think most Americans realize that the president thinks his Iraq policy is a rousing success and most Democrats don't. They get that. They see it. They understand it. If Republicans think the Martyrdom of Joe is going to be their killer issue, let them have at it. They're trying to knock the Dems off their stride but they're showing their desperation. The whole thing is, in both the most serious and frivolous senses of the word, a joke.

One of the better bits from the GOP talking-points festival was Tony Snow shedding crocodile tears over Lieberman's loss: "It's a defining moment for the Democratic Party, whose national leaders now have made it clear that if you disagree with the extreme left in their party they're going to come after you." That's both factually wrong -- the DNC did support Lieberman, as did the biggest dogs in the party, including the Clintons -- and more than a tad ironic given the Schwarz/Walberg primary in Michigan and the upcoming primary in Rhode Island.

What's fun to watch is the flapping around of the Republicans trying to make the most of something that really bodes ill for them. Dick Cheney is saying that Lieberman's loss is encouraging to terrorists, as if Osama bin Laden stays up late reading the Hartford Courant on line. Mr. Cheney, of course, still believes there were WMD's in Iraq, that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, and the insurgency in Iraq is in "its last throes," so you know where he's coming from: some alternative universe. As Joe in DC notes at AMERICAblog:

Terrorists have benefitted immensely from the Bush/Cheney regime. Bush/Cheney have bogged us down in an unwinnable war. They've made us look weak to the world. They've created a breeding ground for terrorists in Iraq. They've undermined American values -- and destroyed our stature in the world. It's laughable to think that Joe Lieberman's loss is even registering with the terrorists.

The Republicans are suddenly realizing they've got huge problems, and true to form, the only way they can deal with them is to find a scapegoat or demonize someone else; as if it isn't their fault that 60% of the electorate now oppose the Iraq war, and using the bullshit argument that if you're opposed to the war, you're supporting al-Qaeda. (For good measure, if you're in favor of gay people having the same rights as everyone else, you're a secular humanist who would serve stem cells as an hors d'oeurve at your next Wiccan ceremony.)

I'll go out on a limb here and say that we ain't seen nothing yet in terms of desperation from the GOP. My guess is the next line will be that the Democrats started the war with Iraq and that only by electing Republicans can we have peace, a balanced budget, and less government intrusion into our lives.

From the New York Times:

British authorities thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up several aircraft mid-flight between the United States and Britain using explosives smuggled in hand luggage, officials said Thursday.

Britain's Home Secretary John Reid said the alleged plot was ''significant'' and that terrorists aimed to ''bring down a number of aircraft through mid-flight explosions, causing a considerable loss of life.''

Police arrested a number of people overnight in London after a major covert counterterrorism operation that had lasted several months, but did not immediately say how many.

The U.S. government responded by raising its threat assessment to the highest level for commercial flights from Britain to the United States early Thursday.

Good job, Scotland Yard.

Charlie Pierce picks up my train of thought about the primary race for the Senate in Rhode Island.

Well, there's no question where the leg-eating blogociraptors should go next. To the Kosmobile, folks, and move yourselves just a few degrees east into Rhode Island. Time to go to work for Steve Laffey, the Club For Growth candidate currently making Lincoln Chaffee's [sic] life even more miserable than it must be for a man who's a dead ringer for one of the crazy aunts in Arsenic And Old Lace. I mean, if Karl Rove and the gang at NRO is going to leap into the fray on the side of Weepin' Joe Lieberman (I-Green Room), why shouldn't you throw your self behind the candidate who's taking big old chunks out of a guy mired, alas, in that wing of the GOP marked Not Insane?

Of course, Cokie and The Dean and all the rest of them who have had the vapors for a month over the activities of the Weather Underground in and around Hartford have somehow missed this story. Pity. Should Chaffee go down, we probably can expect at least two weeks of chin-stroking about Republicans eating their own, and circular firing squads, and implacable conservatives cannibals who believe that bipartisanship is the equivalent of "date rape." I am very sure of this. And I am also Tsar of all the Russias.

At least in Connecticut Lamont has a good chance of winning the race. In Rhode Island, Sen. Chafee is behind against the Democratic candidate, Sheldon Whitehouse, according to Rasmussen, and Whitehouse does even better against Laffey. But the conservatives are so damned intent on getting a True Believer into the race they're willing to lose the seat to a Democrat than let Chafee win.

Hey, go nuts.

John McKay, fellow TLC blogger, keeper of archy, and all-around good guy is about to hit a big birthday and would like to celebrate by reaching a blog-hits goal.

Get over there and say hi, and while you're at it, read his posts. Lots of good stuff.

You've got $100 of found money. You decide to take a road trip.

Destination?

Music choices?

Companion?

Have fun.

August 9, 1974: Richard Nixon resigned the presidency effective at noon.

"Our long national nightmare is over." - President Gerald R. Ford

According to the Miami Herald, Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Gallagher is considering dropping out of the race in order to unify the party behind Attorney General Charlie Crist for the November election.

''Tom is evaluating -- with his family and his friends -- what is best for him and what is best for the Republican Party,'' said Gallagher spokesman Alberto Martinez.

This is not what Florida's top Republicans expected when they came through with nearly $9 million in contributions for the chief financial officer and lined up endorsements from the party's religious conservative wing.

Now, with Gallagher as much as 20 percentage points behind in recent polls and down by more than $2 million, many of those same people are getting cold feet. Some want Gallagher to bow out of the race to give high-profile supporters time to position themselves within the Crist campaign and allow Republicans to save their resources for the general election.

And don't forget; Charlie Crist's election was foretold by God, according to Rev. O'Neal Dozier. So Mr. Gallagher is only bowing to the inevitable.

It's interesting to see that not only is Joe Lieberman out, but so is Joe Schwarz, a moderate Republican, in Michigan. Schwarz wasn't right-wing enough for some -- although he had the backing of the Washington establishment -- and he lost to Timothy Walberg, an ordained minister, who attacked Schwarz as being too liberal; for example, he didn't vote for the gay-bashing Constitutional amendment.

A lot of other bloggers who were a lot more involved in the Lieberman/Lamont race and who invested a lot of time and pixels in it will have a lot more to say about it than I will, but the one thing that stands out isn't just the result; it's how Sen. Lieberman took the defeat -- or rather didn't take it. His defiant "concession" speech -- vowing to continue on as an independent -- pretty much clarified why a lot of people who once supported him voted for someone else: they thought he had lost touch with his constituents.

The righties will all chime in and say that it's the death knell for the Democratic Party and that it is a sign of an irrevocable schism between the moderates -- Lieberman -- and the extremists -- Lamont and the hordes of bloggers. Yet the Schwarz/Walberg race -- according to them -- is no big deal; a True Believer beat a RINO. Nothing to see here, move along, move along.

The results of the Lieberman/Lamont and the Schwarz/Walberg races are saying the same thing: the electorate is restless and willing to go against the conventional wisdom and the establishment, and in terms of issues, it's not just about the local stuff. The mid-term election will be about the war in Iraq and the so-called "culture war." That should make for a very interesting November.

Oh, and Cynthia McKinney lost her run-off in Georgia. Whew.

Thomas Frank cheers the return of some degree of sanity in Kansas...for a little while, at least.

The nation breathed a sigh of relief last week after the conservative majority on the Kansas school board, world famous for its war on the theory of evolution, went down to defeat in Republican primary elections. Conservative candidates for several state government posts foundered as well (but others won). It seemed as though moderation had finally returned to this middlemost of American places. Even better: perhaps the country itself had turned the corner in its long and frustrating war over culture.

[...]

Perhaps, but I think it is far too soon to write the obituary for the godly radicals. Their faction may have chosen lousy candidates this time around, and their public appeal may have dissipated thanks to the preposterous issues (evolution, stem-cell research) against which their leaders have lately been hurling themselves, but the movement is deeply ingrained in Kansas culture. The conservatives will undoubtedly be back.

The culture war will remain with us, both in Kansas and in the nation, because it is larger than any of its leaders, larger than its legions of citizen activists, larger even than the particular causes in which these forces are enlisted. Seen from the streets of Wichita, the rightist rebellion of Kansas seems to fulfill that most romantic of American political traditions: the uprising of the little guy.

To the faithful, theirs is a war against “elites,” and, with striking regularity, that means a war against the professions. The anti-abortion movement, for example, dwells obsessively on the villainy of the medical establishment. The uproar over the liberal media, a popular delusion going on 40, is a veiled reaction to the professionalization of journalism. The war on judges, now enjoying a new vogue, is a response to an imagined “grab for legislative power” (as one current Kansas campaign mailing puts it) by unelected representatives of the legal profession. And the attack on evolution, the most ill-conceived thrust of them all, is a direct shot at the authority of science and, by extension, at the education system, the very foundation of professional expertise.

There is a deep-set suspicion in this country of intelligence; nobody likes the smartest kid in the class. Politicans routinely sell themselves as "a man (or woman) of the people," not some pointy-head intellectual in an ivory tower. This is always a crowd pleaser at county fairs or on the stump because it gives the crowd a feeling of power over some unseen adversary; as if there was some invisible cult of elitists who were secretly ruling the world and making their life miserable. There's a smug satisfaction in feeling that while they may be smarter than you, you're somehow better than they are becuase you're more real or something.

That's all well and good in the abstract, but when it comes down to reality, the last thing you want, in some cases, are just plain folks. If you found out you had a brain tumor, would you want a neurosurgeon who was "just like you"? Of course not. You'd insist on getting the one who graduated at the top of his class from the best med school in the world. It's a no-brainer. (Sorry, couldn't resist.) Why should we settle for anything less when it comes to electing the people who will run the government?

Deep down, we really do want our elected officials to be smarter than we are. We want them to come up with the answers that we can't. We demand a higher level of intelligence and informed reasoning from our leaders because the problems we face can't be solved with a stump speech or a harangue against "elitists." It's when it turns out that they are just as flawed, narrow-minded and human that we are that we are disappointed and feel betrayed. Electing new people is a short-term solution; what we should be insisting on are people who let us know that they aren't just like us.

From the Miami Herald:

The Rapture Index -- a popular evangelical Christian Web posting that calculates a global rise in natural disasters, war and inflation -- bills itself as "a Dow Jones industrial average of end-time activity."

An index below 85 signifies a week of "slow prophetic activity." Anything above 145 signals the apocalypse is near.

The Rapture Index this week: 158. The spike reflects many U.S. evangelicals' view that growing conflict in the Middle East signals the start of a global struggle leading to Christ's return.

"We believe 100 percent what the Scripture has to say about this," said Jack Heintz, a South Florida businessman and president of the Christian group Peace for Israel, who recruited 23 evangelical Christians to join a July telephone fundraising event for Israel. "There's going to be a total battle, the battle of Armageddon, and I believe that's very close to happening."

[...]

Christian Zionism -- the belief that Israel will set the stage for prophetic events such as the rise of the Antichrist, the Battle of Armageddon and Christ's 1,000-year reign -- has steadily gained popularity since the rise of the Christian right in the 1970s and '80s, said Timothy Weber, author of On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel's Best Friend.

In the most gruesome scenario, evangelicals envision a global battle breaking out when a 200-million-man army invades from the east and Jesus returns to take on the Antichrist. Jews and other non-Christians will face conversion or death.

So much for all that "Prince of Peace" crap.

As the post below notes, the Republicans in the House are in deep trouble because of their "stay the course" policy on Iraq. But to listen to some of the punditocracy, the Democrats are on the road to disaster because they are offering an alternative. Hmm. Something doesn't connect here.

Sen. Joe Lieberman's political future is on the line in the Connecticut primary today, and it looks like he's got a very tough race against Ned Lamont. According to Cokie Roberts, the doyenne of ABC's "This Week," electing Lamont over Lieberman would be a disaster for the Democrats; it would mean that the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party has taken over, and, harking back to a previous generation, look what it did for them in 1968 and 1972. Martin Peretz says it's a "dream come true for Karl Rove."

The problem with that logic, as Glenn Greenwald points out, is that a pretty sizable majority of Americans -- Democrats and Republicans -- believe the war in Iraq is a disaster and do not want to "stay the course."

It is virtually impossible to see how this war will ever become more popular, but easy to see how it will become more unpopular still. Under the circumstances, opposing this failed and unpopular war appears to be anything but political suicide. To the contrary, emphatic opposition to this war is, far and away, the Democrats' strongest political weapon. The war in Iraq, from start to finish, belongs to Bush and his unfailingly loyal Republican congressional allies. Strong, clear Democratic opposition to the war will enable Americans to use the 2006 election to express their anger over this war. For those who live in a world of facts and reality and not a self-contained Beltway bubble, a referendum on the deeply unpopular war is one that Democrats will win decisively.

So if electing Ned Lamont means that the Democrats have shifted "to the left," then it would appear that in terms of the war in Iraq, so has most of the country.

A Washington Post/ABC poll finds that a lot of voters are ready to give the incumbents in the House the heave-ho.

Especially worrisome for members of Congress is that the proportion of Americans who approve of their own representative's performance has fallen sharply. Traditionally, voters may express disapproval of Congress as a whole but still vote for their own member, even from the majority party. But 55 percent now approve of their lawmaker, a seven-percentage-point drop over three months and the lowest such finding since 1994, the last time control of the House switched parties.

That doesn't mean, however, that the Democrats can coast to victory in November.

At the same time, the poll's findings underline the challenge for Democrats. For all their disenchantment, most voters are not sure what the party stands for. Just 48 percent say Democrats offer a clear direction different from Republicans, while 47 percent say they do not. The public does not think that Bush or the Democrats have a clear plan for Iraq. Even a slight majority of Democrats say their party does not have an Iraq strategy.

At this stage of the war, it may not matter whether or not the Democrats have a specific strategy for Iraq. Enough of the electorate is unhappy with the current situation that they will settle for just the promise of something else that they are willing to toss out the incumbents.

You have to give credit to the Republicans for their efficiency. It took the Democrats nearly forty years to generate the kind of anti-incumbency mood that got them tossed in 1994. It's only taken the Republicans twelve. Good going, guys.

Leonard Pitts in the Miami Herald:

I write this in order to say I told you so.

Not for me. Well, maybe a little bit for me. But also for some people who would probably never publicly say it for themselves. As a general rule, good soldiers toiling on government payrolls don't do that sort of thing. Columnists toiling on newspaper payrolls, however, do.

Two years ago, the National Intelligence Council produced and presented to President Bush a 50-page report on the future of Iraq. Its forecast: continued instability and a possibility of civil war. The president's response to these dire prognostications? "They were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."

That's what he told reporters, that the best thinking of the best minds on the most pressing item on the American agenda amounted to "just guessing." Later, Bush corrected himself, saying he should have used the word "estimating" instead, but who can doubt that the initial reaction, the off-the-cuff dismissal of information he didn't care to believe, reflects the man's truest character?

Flash forward. Did you see last week's headlines? In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Gen. John Abizaid, head of the U.S. Central Command, said, "I believe that the sectarian violence is probably as bad as I've seen it, in Baghdad in particular, and that if not stopped it is possible that Iraq could move toward civil war."

This followed hard on the heels of an even blunter and bleaker assessment from Britain's outgoing ambassador to Iraq. "The prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of Iraq is probably more likely at this stage than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy," said William Paley in a diplomatic cable obtained by the BBC.

Wow. A civil war is "likely"? Who could have predicted that?

[...]

Which is why, much as I'd like to hope this latest illustration of presidential incompetence will prompt a change in public opinion, I know it won't. We are far gone down a road from which there can be no U-turns.

Therein lies the pity, the pointless waste of it all.

So stack this "I told you so" with all the rest, then sit back and let's watch as Sunnis and Shiites do battle in the rubble that used to be Iraq. A civil war?

They were just guessing, said the leader of the free world.

Looks like a pretty good guess to me.

Well, Mr. Pitts, you're right. The president still doesn't think there's a civil war going on in Iraq.

"You know, I hear people say, well, civil war this, civil war that," Bush said. "The Iraqi people decided against civil war when they went to the ballot box" to ratify a new constitution and vote for a new government.

The "people" who are saying "civil war this, civil war that" are your own generals in your own Defense Department, Mr. President.

Sheesh.

It's time for another round of Guess Who's Gay rumors.

The list of suspected lesbians and gay men is ever growing: In addition to the perennial suspect Tom Cruise, actors like Jake Gyllenhaal and Marcia Cross of “Desperate Housewives” have had to assert their heterosexuality.

[...]

“For every one coming out, we have five denials,” said Michelangelo Signorile, the gay author and Sirius Satellite Radio talk show host famous for pioneering the outing of prominent people as homosexuals in the late 1980’s. As for how gay rumors begin in the first place, they can be triggered by just about anything — a certain look, too many gay friends, being older and still romantically unattached. And more public figures are being put on the spot about their sexual orientation, something that was once considered in bad taste.

[...]

“Gay people propagate these rumors, too, because they’re looking for affirmation in the public arena by identifying positive cultural icons as part of their own community,” said Verta Taylor, the chairwoman of the sociology department at the University of California, Santa Barbara, who is a lesbian and writes about gender and sexuality.

It all comes down to the question of "Who gives a rat's ass?" I really don't think knowing the details of a celebrity's private life really matters, and I can't think of too many people over the age of fourteen who sought affirmation of their own identity through the life and loves of a cultural icon. (Jake Gyllenhaal is a good actor, but "cultural icon?" C'mon.)

When I was at the University of Colorado in the early 1980's, a rumor went through the campus gay community that Tom Cruise was secretly enrolled under his mother's maiden name, taking classes...and that he was gay! "Cruise sightings" were reported on a regular basis; he was taking a psych class wearing a beard and baseball cap, and so on, and several guys were sure that they had seen him at a local gay bar. None of the sightings bore fruit (sorry), and even if they had, I wonder what made my friends think they had a chance with him?

If you get mugged in Tobago, the cop who shows up to arrest the perp might be a bobby.

With unprecedented levels of drug-related gang violence, kidnappings and murders threatening to soil the English-speaking Caribbean's idyllic image, an increasing number of governments around the region is desperately turning to British and other foreign police officers for assistance.

"We need help," St. Lucia Acting Police Commissioner Hermangild Francis told The Miami Herald. "Without it, we will be in trouble."

"There has to be more collaboration," said Lance Selman, director of the Caribbean Community's regional Implementation Agency for Crime and Security. "We are still much more peaceful than most of the other regions [of the world], but the fact of the matter is, the situation has changed, value systems have changed."

[...]

But not everyone is greeting the bobbies with open arms.

Some argue that the former British colonies should cut the umbilical cord with Mother England, while others say the answer to crime isn't recruiting foreign officers but investing in better training, equipment and salaries for local police.

Last month, more than 2,000 rank-and-file Jamaican police officers working in some of the most volatile communities called in sick to protest poor pay.

In Trinidad and Tobago, the police union has raised similar concerns while lashing out at the government's decision earlier this year to recruit 39 police officers from across the United Kingdom to boost the twin-island nation's homicide and anti-kidnapping unit. The country's murder rate has tripled since 2000.

"It basically sends the wrong signal... that the police of Trinidad and Tobago are incapable on their own of [dealing] with the crime situation," said Cedric Neptune, president of the Police Service and Social Welfare Association.

With all due respect to the constabulary on Trinidad and Tobago, let me remind Mr. Neptune that most of the islands in the Caribbean rely on tourism, and not a lot of tourists care about the nationality of the policeman who protect them.

Years ago the state of Virginia's tourism slogan was "Virginia is for lovers." Of course, that applied only to straight people.

Edel Quinones lived in Virginia for 10 years, but early this year, he sold his Arlington townhouse to move to the District.

"It felt like I wasn't welcome anymore," he said.

Quinones and his partner of three years are joining a migration of gay people out of Virginia in the face of recent legislative action they perceive as hostile.

Twenty states have amended their constitution to ban same-sex marriage since 2004. Virginia state legislators passed a law two years ago that prohibits "civil unions, partnership contracts or other arrangements between persons of the same sex purporting to bestow the privileges or obligations of marriage." A proposed constitutional amendment, which will go to voters in November, excludes any "unmarried individuals" from "union, partnership or other legal status similar to marriage."

Many gay people in Virginia and some family-law attorneys say they worry that the state law and proposed amendment are more far-reaching than simple bans on gay marriage -- that the measures could threaten the legal viability of the contracts used by gay couples to share ownership of property and businesses.

The exact effects are unclear, and the 2004 law remains untested, but some gays say they fear the laws could affect their ability to own homes together; to draft powers of attorney, adoption papers or wills; or to arrange for hospital visitation or health surrogacy.

Married people get these rights automatically through long-established common law; gay people use legal documents to ensure they can leave their property at death to their partner or allow their partner, rather than the patient's birth family, to make end-of-life decisions for them. Some gay people worry that hostile family members could use the language in the laws to seize their possessions or take custody of their children if they could prove the couple had a relationship that illegally approximated a marriage.

[...]

Emmanuel Vaughan, who writes customer-service training scripts, is another transplant. He moved to a place in the District in October, putting his Arlington house up for sale. He said he moved because he became angry over what the state legislature was doing, and he worried that he and his partner, Drew Lent, an international trainer, could be in legal jeopardy.

"As an African-American, having grown up during the Civil Rights movement in Birmingham, Ala., I am not willing to have my rights taken away from me by ignorant, religious zealots who don't respect the constitutional understanding of separation of Church and State when scripting laws," he wrote in an e-mail. "It was apparent to me that things weren't getting any better, but worse. Why should I continue to pay taxes to support such a hateful government?"

Why indeed.

What these ignorant, religious zealots forget is that gay people who work and own homes and go shopping and register cars and so forth also pay taxes, and they usually do it at a higher rate since they're not allowed to take the marriage deduction. They also contribute to the community in the same way anybody else would; volunteering for civic duties, contributing to their church or place of worship, and in all the other mundane ways that people who live in a community and care for it do.

It may be all well and good for the Religious Reich to have some smug sense of self-satisfaction that they've gotten rid of all the icky queers, but let's see what happens the next time they want to get their hair done or put on a musical...

This is a revision of one previously asked, but given recent events, I thought I'd ask it again.

Would you refuse to see a film or a performance by an actor because you disagreed with his or her political views?

This comes up because the other night Chicken Run was on HBO and I enjoy that film a lot. The only problem -- for some people -- is that Mel Gibson does one of the voices. Given his recent film work, not to mention his drunken diatribes, there are those who refuse to have anything to do with him or anything he's associated with.

(PS: I watched it.)

Holy Crap: The Toledo Blade takes you on a tour of the new Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky.

Steve McConaughy gets goose bumps when he tells people about the Creation Museum.

The $26.4-million facility will not open until spring, but the air-traffic controller from Toledo already has made nine pilgrimages to the suburban Cincinnati site.

"The first time was in the fall of 2001, when it was just a muddy field with a bulldozer sitting on it," he said with a proud smile.

Mr. McConaughy made his ninth visit just nine days ago for a behind-the-scenes tour of the facility with exhibits - including animatronic dinosaurs and a high-tech Special SFX theater - that are only 10 percent finished.

The preview was open to Creation Museum charter members and invited guests, so Mr. McConaughy took the opportunity to bring 34 people from the Toledo area who share his belief that the universe was created exactly, literally, word-for-word as the Bible describes it in the Book of Genesis.

[...]

Ken Ham, the Australian-born science teacher and founder of the museum, said organizers are in the unusual - and enviable - position of having to expand the facility before it even opens.

The price tag was upped from $25 million to $26.4 million. Organizers plan to add more parking spaces, expand the lobby, and add a level to the cafe.

Mr. Ham said $22 million has been raised thus far and the museum is on track to be debt-free by opening day. More than $15 million has come from gifts of $100 or less, he added.

The broad support among conservative Christians is not just because of the museum's presentation of the creation story. Many supporters are rallying behind the museum's stated mission to "take back our culture."

How a person views creation and evolution sets the tone for how he or she views the world, Mr. Ham asserted.

That makes the creation debate a critical battle zone in America's "culture war."

"There is a widening chasm between those who adhere to Christian morality - i.e., absolutes that are actually founded in the Bible - and those who adhere to moral relativism - i.e., everyone has a right to determine his or her rules for life," Mr. Ham said in an interview with The Blade.

"The more that generations are trained to disbelieve the Bible's account of origins, the more they will reject the rest of the Bible," he said.

The teaching of evolution as fact, rather than as theory, has undermined the authority of the Bible and brought about the rise of secularization and moral chaos, Mr. Ham said.

He also believes the rejection of the Bible as a moral compass has given rise to an array of cultural conflicts on issues such as abortion, divorce, homosexuality, and euthanasia.

The Creation Museum is designed to inspire Americans to accept the Bible as absolute authority and to halt the spread of secular humanism and moral relativism in society.

As Mr. McConaughy sees it, the Creation Museum can change people's lives.

"The museum has all the scientific answers for creation," he said, "but they really want people to know that if you take the Bible as your starting place, you're probably going to be more successful in looking out at the world."

Hey, if somebody wants to spend their money on stuff like this, it's fine with me. Seeing as how this museum is grounded in the same sort of reality as Disneyland, it makes a nice tourist destination if you haven't the wherewithal to go to Orlando. But I draw the line at these snake-oilers telling me that only by believing in their version of some fairy tale is the only way to be a good human being or American citizen.

Fidel's Little Brother: Carlos Alberto Montaner looks at Raúl Castro, the little man who stands in his brother's shadow.

Fidel Castro was taking great pains to prepare his 80th birthday celebration. It was set for Aug. 13. Some official note told of "thousands of international invitees." It was to be his apotheosis. In the classic world, the word apotheosis was given to the ceremony that conferred the condition of gods upon a nation's heroes. But Castro couldn't turn into a god. His diverticula -- small ulcers that lacerate the intestine and sometimes cause profuse bleeding -- got in the way. The hemorrhage was so intense that they had to operate on him urgently. Given his age, the surgery was very risky, but failure to attempt it could become an inevitable death sentence.

From that point on, suspicious maneuvers began. After the operation, and on a provisional basis, as the official document stipulates half a dozen times, Fidel Castro transferred his powers and responsibilities to Raúl, his younger brother, an elderly general 75 years old, addicted to whiskey, cockfighting and bawdy jokes. Shortly thereafter, they declared that the Comandante was recovering quickly but decreed that his health was "a state secret, so as not to give weapons to Yankee imperialism."

Worse, they drifted into fantasy. Rumors shook Cuba from one end to the other. Some gave him up for dead. Others, probably the most accurate, said he was gravely ill and predicted a slow and painful convalescence from which he would emerge without the physical ability required to regain power. No photos or official medical reports were produced. They were concealing the image of a defenseless little old man, probably intubated, clad in a humiliating hospital gown and beset by an insolent pain in the rectum.

[...]

The irony is that neither of them is governing today. Fidel can't do it because he's bound to a bed with catheters, sentenced to silence, a horrible punishment for a man who suffers from chronic oral incontinence. But Raúl can't govern either, because he cannot take any initiative that goes counter to the opinions of his brother. That paralyzes him. That's why he remains silent. That's why he dares not publicly assume command, much less begin giving orders or transmitting a personal vision of the conflicts or their solutions.

He does not fear the Yankees' reactions but that of Fidel, an implacable and irascible brother, ever dissatisfied, who has not stopped intimidating him for one minute of his life and now watches him through the fog of pain killers from a bed at the CIMEQ hospital in Havana. He knows that if he takes one false step and the Comandante manages to come back, Fidel will send him into retirement or punish him in some ostensible and humiliating manner.

We're not looking at a provisional government but at an impasse. Raúl prepares to assume command, but for that to happen he first has to read into the TV cameras his brother's death notice, and there's no way to predict when that will happen. Simultaneously he fears and desires Fidel's death. Today, he's the most daunted and saddest man in Cuba.

Primary Difference: Sen. Joe Lieberman is in deep trouble in his primary race against challenger Ned Lamont. Dan Balz of the Washington Post wonders what this means for the Democratic Party.

The passion and energy fueling the antiwar challenge to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman in Connecticut's Senate primary signal a power shift inside the Democratic Party that could reshape the politics of national security and dramatically alter the battle for the party's 2008 presidential nomination, according to strategists in both political parties.

A victory by businessman Ned Lamont on Tuesday would confirm the growing strength of the grass-roots and Internet activists who first emerged in Howard Dean's presidential campaign. Driven by intense anger at President Bush and fierce opposition to the Iraq war, they are on the brink of claiming their most significant political triumph, one that will reverberate far beyond the borders here if Lieberman loses.

An upset by Lamont would affect the political calculations of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who like Lieberman supported giving Bush authority to wage the Iraq war, and could excite interest in a comeback by former vice president Al Gore, who warned in 2002 that the war could be a grave strategic error. For at least the next year, any Democrat hoping to play on the 2008 stage would need to reckon with the implications of Lieberman's repudiation.

As Michael Tomasky of Tapped points out, the wingers are all salivating at the prospect of Democratic in-fighting, all the while ignoring their own primary battle going on next door in Rhode Island between Lincoln Chafee, a moderate Republican, and a right-wing challenger. The National Review had no trouble coming out for the challenger back in February.

There is an alternative. Steven Laffey, the Republican mayor of Cranston, is running against Chafee in the September primary. His underdog campaign has shown both pluck and promise. Laffey has a track record of winning Democratic votes: That's the only way he could have been elected two times as mayor of Cranston, a city of about 80,000 residents, most of them Democrats. But on key issues, Laffey is a conservative: He supports tax cuts and the war in Iraq, opposes corporate welfare and other forms of wasteful spending, and is pro-life. The Club for Growth has decided to back him. His campaign has unfortunately chosen to bash "Big Oil" in some of its early advertising — but, as we said, it's difficult to be a Republican in Rhode Island.

Even if Laffey were to win the primary but lose the general election, beating Chafee would send a helpful message to the kind of Republican who thinks Chafee's "independence" is something to admire and emulate. (Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine come to mind.) That message: that Republican voters will not be taken for granted just because they are in the minority in their state. Then there's the tantalizing possibility that Laffey might actually win both the primary and the general election. It's a chance worth taking. What do conservatives have to lose? The worst possible outcome is only that Rhode Islanders will trade a virtual Democrat for a real one.

So the Lieberman/Lamont race has all the makings of a destructive battle in the Democratic Party and will affect the party for years, but the Chafee/Laffey race is good because it sends a message to Republicans who dare to drift away from the True Faith. IOKIYAR, anyone?

Doonesbury: Framing the debate.

Link to this post | posted by Mustang Bobby @ 8:10 AM  

Republican candidates are running away from President Bush like he was a wet dog at a wedding.

On Capitol Hill, Rep. Mark Kennedy (Minn.) and Sen. James M. Talent (Mo.) are known as loyal Republican soldiers, reliable votes for President Bush on tax cuts and the Iraq war. In elections past, they have aired advertisements featuring the president and have stumped with him at public rallies.

This year, both are running for Senate seats, but their television ads have made no mention of Bush -- and have been conspicuous in distancing the candidates from their partisan affiliation. "Most people don't care if you're red or blue, Republican or Democrat," Talent's ad states. A recent ad from Kennedy says, "He doesn't do what the party says to."

[...]

Steven S. Smith, a political scientist and congressional expert at Washington University in St. Louis, said he believes that the new Kennedy and Talent ads are harbingers of what to expect from other GOP incumbents in tough races, such as Sens. Mike DeWine (Ohio) and Conrad Burns (Mont.). Their strategy, he said, is "to try to inoculate themselves against the inevitable series of ads from their opponent charging them with being Bushies."

"All these guys are trying to seem like reasonable, moderate guys who are not the scary conservatives who their opponents will make them out to be," Smith added. "But they all have very conservative records and support for the president that will make it difficult for them to duck this."

[...]

GOP strategists, however, say there is little question that candidates are looking to draw distinctions between themselves and Bush, emphasizing their independence on issues such as embryonic stem cell research and immigration. "In the last two elections, you were able to run under President Bush and that was an advantage," said one top GOP strategist, who insisted on anonymity so as not to be seen as critical of the president. "It's clear today that's unlikely to be the advantage that it was in the past. A lot of candidates are trying to figure out how to deal with that."

It sounds like the best campaign slogan a Democrat could come up with is "My opponent is a loyal supporter of the president and everything he stands for."

Meanwhile, here in Florida we had another episode of "How weird can the Harris campaign get?"

Eliciting silence and nervous chuckles from a Republican crowd, U.S. Senate candidate LeRoy Collins Jr. asked Katherine Harris at a candidates' forum Friday to do what other party leaders have already requested of her: Drop out of the race for everyone's benefit.

"The notoriety that she's gotten for our party, in my opinion, has infected us all," said Collins, referring to a federal investigation tied to a contributor to Harris' campaign, which has weathered months of bad press.

Harris, her smile frozen, ignored Collins' request at the time, later calling it "a good press gimmick" by a "single-digits" candidate calling "on the front-runner to leave."

A new Miami Herald poll shows both candidates might be right: 35 percent of likely Republican primary voters favor Harris over her three Republican opponents -- Collins, Will McBride and Peter Monroe -- who are all stuck in the single digits. McBride leads the pack of lesser-knowns with 9 percent of the vote.

Such bravado doesn't mean, however, that there aren't some sketchy characters working for the Harris campaign and who like to make the debate a little more bizarre -- if that's possible.

Ducking questions about whether she would appear in a full debate, Harris earned the most applause after stressing her anti-abortion views. Collins, a former Navy admiral and namesake of Florida's Civil Rights-era governor, was the only one to suggest he was uncomfortable with a ban on abortion in the first two trimesters because accidental pregnancies, such as by rape, happen.

Like Harris, Collins said he takes "a very hard stance" against illegal immigrants. McBride, the only Hispanic in the race and an attorney who has done pro-bono immigration work, said he doesn't favor blanket amnesty or mass deportation. A woman in the crowd suggested otherwise when she held up a picture of McBride marching with an immigrants-rights group in Fort Myers.

Then came a question from Harris supporter Jackie Brownhill, who asked: "Why did you change your name from Rodriguez to McBride?"

McBride, who hadn't changed his name, was stunned.

"Well, I have to tell you, that's the first time I've heard that," he said. 'They're saying, 'You're Hispanic. You're pro-amnesty. You're pro-illegal immigration.' That's not the truth. The truth is, I can't help it if I have two Hispanic grandmothers and two Caucasian grandfathers. I'm not ashamed of who I am."

After the debate, McBride asked Brownhill, wearing a Harris sticker, where she got her information and she said: "The campaign asked me to ask you." Harris said her campaign didn't plant the question.

Anything else we can do to supply the Daily Show with free clips?

It's August already? Gosh, it must be time to head for Texas and ignore the PDB. But let's not ignore the view of the world from The Liberal Coalition.

Coturnix says the way to survive is to be smart and invisible.

All Facts and Opinions is on the air. And jammin'.

archy thinks there's an agenda behind a conspiracy theory.

Bark Bark Woof Woof looks at the Democrats' chances.

blogAmY lets China have it over their extermination of dogs. Grrr.

Moi at bloggg finds a plant that would be very popular in a certain type of bar -- like the Velvet Spike.

Collective Sigh sees signs of of extreme weather in South Africa.

NTodd wonders how effective sanctions can be.

Echidne continues her series on divorce in Winnuttia.

TRex at FDL is off to help the Lamont campaign.

First Draft on Target pleading poverty in Chicago.

Happy Furry Puppy chronicles the misdeeds of the left this week.

iddybud on losing Turkey as an ally.

Left Is Right on how the VA is screwing the veterans.

Lefty brings back-up.

Liberty Street on Rummy's ruminations before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Make Me A Commentator: Funny, you don't look neo-conish.

Musing's musings on minimum wage.

Pen-Elayne has a way to let you play with Steve Colbert's "On Notice" board.

Rook's Rant on those dangerous tree-planting kids.

rubber hose asks how many more plans Israel has.

Scrutiny Hooligans on his uncle's great idea.

Sooner Thought on a surprising switch in Oklahoma.

Speedkill on pseudoscience in Montana.

Steve Gilliard on Joe Lieberman's newest allies.

T. Rex's Guide to Life has the lowdown on the Florida Progressive Coalition.

The Countess offers a tale of irony about a father's rights advocate.

The Invisible Library: you bring the loaves; he's got the fishes.

WTF Is It Now?? has the president's vacation plans.

The Yellow Doggerel Democrat on the adminstration's ideas for keeping us safe.

...You Are A Tree has a word.

It's cooler here in Florida than just about everywhere else. Nice place for a summer vacation, too.

Snowball likes Sam's taste in cars.

It's a 1959 Buick LeSabre.

Hey, it could happen.

WASHINGTON, June 21, 2008. President Bush, citing his authority as Commander in Chief of the armed forces and his inherent constitutional power over foreign affairs, today ordered a postponement of the 2008 presidential election in order "to protect the American people in our war on terror."

In a speech during a surprise visit to Baghdad, where he celebrated the summer solstice with the troops, Mr. Bush told the nation that the election will be "rescheduled as soon as a change in leadership does not create a security threat and not a second later. When the Iraqis stand up, we'll vote."

"Elections are important," the President acknowledged. "I know that. I believe in elections. I'm President because of an election, sort of. But protecting the nation from another 9/11 is more important than holding an election precisely on time."

The President noted that as Commander in Chief he had already approved telephone wiretapping without court warrant, incarcerated alleged "enemy combatants" indefinitely without trial and, in a February 2002 order, now rescinded, had authorized the armed forces to ignore the Geneva Conventions when "consistent with military necessity," so long as everyone was treated "humanely."

"If I can do all that, I can defer an election," the President said. "Look, as between not voting on time and getting locked up without all those Geneva rules and such, which is worse?"

In a Washington press conference following the President's speech, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales laid out the legal basis for his department's conclusion that the President could postpone the election.

"Legally, it's simple," Mr. Gonzales said. "It depends on what the meaning of 'four years' is. The Constitution says the President 'shall hold his office during the term of four years.' It does not say 'only four years' or 'four years and not a day more.' The Framers intended 'four years' to be a preference, not a rigid number. We should not take it literally any more than the words 'hold his office' means no woman can be President. A woman is running now.

"Time meant something different in 1789," Mr. Gonzales added. "This was before airline schedules and self-winding watches. People didn't run their lives by the clock. Many Americans didn't have clocks."

In a speech on the Senate floor, Joseph Lieberman (IND-Conn.) supported the President's decision. "While I do not believe we should lightly suspend the exercise of the franchise," he said, "protection of the nation cannot be and must not be a partisan issue. As Americans, we can all agree that security is the most important job of a President. We can have a country without an election, but we cannot have an election without a country. It's as simple as that."

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), the likely Democratic nominee, had no immediate comment, but her office said she will hold a news conference following the results of early polling. A spokesperson for her campaign, granted anonymity because she was not authorized to speak to the press about anything, said the senator "is absolutely opposed to postponing the election as such, but she is amenable to rescheduling the day designated for the actual vote. There is a difference."

Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said he was "troubled" that he had not been consulted on the President's decision. He vowed to "hold hearings following the day that should have been election day if I am chairman of the committee at that time. Unfortunately, we're backlogged on judicial nominations at the moment, and then there's the summer recess. People have plans and nonrefundable tickets."

At his press conference, Mr. Gonzales denied that the Supreme Court's 2006 rejection of military tribunals meant that the President could not delay an election. That decision, known as Hamdan, rested on federal statutes and the Geneva Accords. "Hamdan was about trials, not voting," he explained. "Geneva doesn't apply to voting. It's a mistake to confuse the two."

Asked if he expected a court challenge to the President's decision, Mr. Gonzales said he was "resigned to the prospect that some may cynically try to use this for their own political advantage." But he added that he was "confident that if the case reaches the Supreme Court, five Justices will agree with our interpretation of 'four years.'" [Stephen Gillers, The Nation.]

As an aftershock to the post below, Katherine Harris' campaign is losing staff again.

Four more staffers have left Katherine Harris' troubled U.S. Senate campaign, which is putting an upbeat face on the reams of bad publicity that have rolled in with renewed force this week.

"We're excited," said spokeswoman Jennifer Marks, touting the endorsement of Florida Right to Life on Wednesday.

"We have new management, a new staff and we're energized to see the congresswoman through the election," she said.

Over the past week, some of the staffers left without explanation, but at least one confessed to others of being fed up. Another is a National Guard soldier who was deployed to Baghdad.

Whaddaya bet the soldier thought he had a better chance of survival with dignity in Baghdad than he did working for Ms. Harris?

Katherine Harris has a little secret.

Rep. Katherine Harris' floundering Senate campaign received a grand jury subpoena from federal investigators, but she kept it from her top advisers, prompting several staff members to quit when they found out, a former aide said Wednesday.

The Justice Department is investigating Harris' dealings with Mitchell Wade, a defense contractor who pleaded guilty to bribing another congressman.

[...]

In June, the Harris campaign received a legal bill for thousands of dollars that contained a reference to "DOJ subpoena," according to the aide, who spoke with The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to avoid hurting his career.

It was only then that Harris disclosed that the campaign had received the Department of Justice subpoena, the aide said.

But wait, there's more. Under House rules, she was supposed to report the subpoena to the Speaker of the House, but she didn't. When asked why, her spokesdroid claimed she didn't have to:

It is important to point out that the Department of Justice has informed Congresswoman Harris she is not a target of the investigation. Our campaign has helped the Department of Justice in every way they have asked, and there have been no requests of the congresswoman personally, or of her congressional office, that would require a report to the House Speaker.

Okay, that explains it.

Florida: doing our part to make the election of 2006 just a little more surreal.

Sen. Rick Santorum is in enough trouble in his re-election campaign in Pennsylvania that the Republicans have invested in a third candidate in the race to siphon off votes from the Democrats. Paul Kiel reports for TPM Muckracker:

Every single contributor to the Pennsylvania Green Party Senate candidate is actually a conservative -- except for the candidate himself.

The Luzerne County Green Party raised $66,000 in the month of June in order to fund a voter signature drive. The Philly Inquirer reported yesterday that $40,000 came from supporters of Rick Santorum's campaign (or their housemates). Also yesterday, we confirmed that another $15,000 came from GOP donors and conservatives. Only three contributions, totaling $11,000, remained as possible legit donations.

Today, I confirmed that those came from GOP sources.

- The Green Party listed a $1,000 check from a Bill Wickerman of Covington & Burling. There is no such person. However, a Bill Wichterman works there. He's a Republican lobbyist who has also given to Santorum this campaign.

- James Holman, who in the past has supported GOP House candidate Howard Kaloogian, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS), and Rep. J.D. Hayworth (R-AZ), was incorrectly listed by the Greens as "James Howmen." He disclosed that he was an editor at the San Diego Reader; a James Holman is the publisher there.

- The Green Party disclosed that a "Franklin Schoneman" of Pottsville, Pa. gave $5,000. A "Franklin Schoeneman" of Pottsville has given $8,000 to Santorum so far this election.

That leaves only one contribution, for $30, as a legitimate donation from a Green Party supporter. That came from the candidate himself, Carl Romanelli. He made it to his own campaign fund, not the local Green Party.

Romanelli's latest FEC report shows his campaign currently has $17.20 on hand.

It has to be a new level of cynicism -- or desperation -- when the GOP doesn't have enough faith in their own candidate to back him directly in his race.

According to a poll, three in ten Americans believe the government had something to do with 9/11.

The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.

Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

Suspicions that the 9/11 attacks were "an inside job" - the common phrase used by conspiracy theorists on the Internet - quickly have become nearly as popular as decades-old conspiracy theories that the federal government was responsible for President John F. Kennedy's assassination and that it has covered up proof of space aliens.

Thirty-six percent of respondents overall said it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them "because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East."

I get e-mails from some group that contends the Bush administration was behind the 9/11 attacks, and they go into the trash before they even make it to my in-box.

There are two reasons why conspiracy theories fail the laugh test. First, it assumes that the federal government is competent enough to pull off something like that; our recent history is proof enough that that's not likely. The second is that it assumes that everyone involved can keep a secret. Again, recent history shows that our government leaks like an incontinent pig. So if there really was some vast conspiracy of the federal government behind all of this, it is the best-kept secret since Elvis went to work at the Burger King in Grand Rapids.

It also requires a certain level of distrust and hatred of the basic elements of our nation; one being that the government that we have instituted and is truly in our hands -- after all, no one has yet to prove that the people who work in government are all from another planet (yet) -- is some malevolent entity that is out to get us in ways that go far beyond the demonstrated incidents of warrantless wiretapping and military tribunals. That's a great plot outline for a Sci-Fi channel series, but in reality, we're just not that clever. The "us" versus "them" mentality that is the driving force behind conspiracy theories doesn't allow for the practical realities of human error and the inability for some people just to keep their mouths shut.

Charlie Cook tells the National Journal that the Democrats are poised for big gains in November.

The GOP Hill Gets Steeper

With fewer than 100 days left before the Nov. 7 election, certain assumptions can now be made, contingent upon the absence of a cataclysmic event.

First, the political climate will be extremely hostile to Republican candidates. Second, while Republicans benefited from turnout in 2002 and 2004, this time voter turnout will benefit Democratic candidates. And third, the advantages that the GOP usually has in national party spending will be significantly less than normal.

In terms of the political climate, the facts are clear. All of the traditional diagnostic indicators in major national polls taken in the past 10 days show numbers consistent with an electoral rout.

In the latest Cook Political Report/RT Strategies poll, conducted last Friday through Sunday among 809 registered voters, only 27 percent said the country was headed in the right direction and 63 percent said it was off on the wrong track. In polling for NBC and the Wall Street Journal, conducted July 21-24 and for CBS and the New York Times, taken July 21-25, the right direction numbers were 27 and 28 percent, respectively, while wrong track results were 60 and 66 percent respectively. These numbers are about the same as they were at this point in 1994 and going into Election Day that year.

(The error margin was 3.2 points for Cook/RT, and 3.1 points for the other two.)

On Congress' approval rating, the Cook/RT and CBS/Times polls found just 28 percent approved of the job Congress was doing. It was 25 percent in the NBC/Journal survey. Those numbers are a shade better than at this point in 1994, but still in the same horrific category.

On the generic congressional ballot, Democrats were ahead by 13 points among registered voters, 49 to 36 percent in the Cook RT poll, and by 10 points in the other two. In 1994 NBC/Journal polling, Republicans were still 5-6 points behind in both second- and early third-quarter polling, but surged to a 5-point lead in the final pre-election poll.

Finally, measuring President Bush's job ratings, the CBS/Times poll showed a 36 percent approval rating, while the NBC/Journal and Cook/RT polls both showed 39 percent approvals. Early in the third quarter of 1994, President Clinton had a 44 percent approval; it moved up to 48 percent in the final pre-election poll.

On the second assumption, that Democrats will have a strong turnout advantage, it is very clear that they are more motivated than Republicans. When asked, on a scale of one to 10, how interested they are in the upcoming election, with 10 representing extremely interested, 44 percent of registered voters chose the top number in the Cook/RT poll. Turnout will probably be a little more than one-third, but less than this 44 percent.

Among those with the highest level of interest, Democrats had a 19-point lead on the generic congressional ballot, 52 percent to 33 percent. In the NBC/Journal poll, among those who chose 10 on the scale of interest, Democrats led by 14 points. These are very strong showings.

For the third assumption, a diminished GOP financial advantage, the June 30 cash-on-hand figures tell the whole story. For the GOP, the Republican National Committee had $44.68 million, the National Republican Senatorial Committee showed $19.9 million and the National Republican Congressional Committee reported $26.42 million, for a total of $91 million.

On the Democratic side, the Democratic National Committee had $10.84 million, the Democratic Senatorial Committee reported $37.7 million and the Democratic Congressional Committee showed $32 million, for a total of $80 million. When was the last time Democrats were within $11 million of Republicans in hard dollars? I don't know, but it's been a while.

In the House, where Democrats need a 15-seat gain to win a majority, Republicans have 15 seats that the Cook Political Report currently rates as tossups. No Democratic seats remain in that column. Another 21 GOP seats are rated as leaning Republican.

In a very large tidal wave election, as this one appears to be, it would not be unusual to see all tossups go to one party, along with a few out of the leaning column as well. Republicans might lose their House majority just in the seats in which they are behind or in which their edge is within a poll's margin of error.

In the Senate, while it is easy to get Democrats to a four- or five-seat net gain, six is tougher. But keep in mind that in the last four non-"wave" elections, between 67 and 89 percent of the races rated as "tossups" in the final Cook Political Report pre-election ratings broke toward one party each time, a domino effect, with the close races breaking toward the party with momentum.

This does not mean that Republicans no longer have any chance of holding onto their House or even Senate majorities. But as every day goes by between now and Nov. 7 that their poll numbers, nationally and locally, look this bad, the climb back gets incrementally steeper and more difficult.

(HT to a friend with a paid link to NJ.)

The worst thing the Democrats could do now is believe this story and give the GOP the opportunity to make up -- in every sense of the term -- their lost ground. We have already had a few whiffs of the Swift Boaters waiting in the wings, and the governor's campaign in Ohio is already setting records for slimery, not to mention the Missouri Senate race (see below).

The biggest advantage the Democrats have, of course, is that this election has become a national election and a referendum on the leadership of both the president and the Republican majority in Congress and the Senate. This is the last thing the GOP wants, so you're going to hear a lot of them quoting their late nemesis, Tip O'Neill, that "all politics is local," and therefore the election for governor in Michigan or the Senate in Florida or the Ohio 5th district isn't about the war in Iraq or the national energy policy. Unfortunately, though, the GOP basically made those issues local; a funeral in Albuquerque for a soldier killed in Iraq makes the war very local, and $3 a gallon for gas at the station on the corner brings it home, too.

The challenge for the Democrats is to make the election a referendum on the one-party rule we've had since 2001 on a national level and make the case that change can be wrought at the local level. Oh, and actually do something once they're in office about these issues and not turn it into a free-for-all of revenge against the Bush administration. That's not to say there shouldn't be legitimate inquiry and oversight; what I'm talking about is looney excessiveness along the lines of Rep. Dan Burton shooting a melon to prove that Vince Foster was murdered. We had a taste of that during the Clinton second term and look at how much of the peoples' work got done then.

The surest way to capitalize on winning back a majority for the Democrats and get a Democrat in the White House in 2008 is to get to work.

George F. Will, noted conservative columnist, once said that conservatives aren't supposed to be nice; they're supposed to be competent. It seems that Missouri Republican Senator James Talent's re-election campaign is neither.

What started as a typical campaign jab in Missouri's U.S. Senate race on Tuesday quickly escalated into accusations of insensitivity and demands for an apology.

It began with a Missouri Republican Party press release accusing Democrat Claire McCaskill of failing to file a routine campaign finance report on time.

The release included an Internet link to a July 28 letter from the Federal Election Commission to McCaskill saying she "may have failed to file" the pre-primary finance report. Missouri GOP spokesman Paul Sloca said the FEC letter exposed McCaskill's "incompetence and her willful disregard for the law."

McCaskill's campaign denounced the Republican statement as inaccurate - and unprofessional, in light of the death Saturday of Melissa Berridge, the campaign's compliance director.

Berridge, 38, of St. Louis, was among six skydivers who died Saturday in the crash near the eastern Missouri town of Sullivan.

Adrianne Marsh, spokeswoman for the McCaskill campaign, said Berridge's records show she sent the report on July 24, as required, and produced a certified receipt to prove it. Marsh said the filing may have been lost in the mail, but the campaign is working it out with FEC officials.

Marsh called on the Republican Party and incumbent Sen. Jim Talent - McCaskill's opponent - to issue "an immediate apology to Melissa's family and retract their insensitive release."

Sloca declined.

"It's unfortunate that Claire McCaskill has turned this into an issue about the unfortunate death of a staffer to hide from her incompetence," he said.

Nice people.

There's more here at Fired Up Missouri.

Welcome back to the 20th century, Kansas -- for the moment.

Conservative Republicans who approved new classroom standards that call evolution into question lost control of the State Board of Education in Tuesday's primary election.

A victory by pro-evolution Republican candidate Jana Shaver over conservative Republican Brad Patzer, who supported the standards treating evolution as a flawed theory, meant conservatives would at best have five of 10 seats on the board.

Five seats were up for election in the primary, the latest skirmish in a seesawing battle between faith and science that has opened Kansas up to international ridicule.

[...]

Control of the school board has slipped into, out of and back into conservative Republicans' hands since 1998, resulting in anti-evolution standards in 1999, evolution-friendly ones in 2001 and anti-evolution ones again last year.

Late-night comedians have been making cracks about Kansas, portraying it as backward and ignorant. Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" broadcast a four-part series titled, "Evolution Schmevolution."

Next year they'll add the Flying Spaghetti Monster and start it up all over again.

It looks like TS Chris could become a hurricane. The latest 5-day has it heading west-northwest and therefore south of mainland Florida.

Hatches are prepared to be battened.

The Miami Herald speculates about what's really going on in Havana.

An ambiguous, somewhat cryptic statement issued Tuesday night in Fidel Castro's name said his health was "stable" and "my spirit is perfectly fine." But it also contained clues that a complete recovery might not be certain.

"A real evolution of the state of one's health requires the passing of time," the statement said. "The most I could say is that the situation will remain stable for many days before a verdict can be delivered."

That left Cubans on both sides of the Florida Straits still in limbo today, seeking answers to two basic yet monumental questions:

Can Castro stage a full recovery from the unspecified intestinal bleeding that required an emergency operation? Is Cuba finally on the cusp of change after 47 years of repression?

National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcón said the "final moment is still very far away." U.S. officials said they believed Castro is still alive.

But no new pictures surfaced, no other proof was offered -- not even what hospital he's in -- and Castro's brother and the inheritor of his power, Raúl, also remained out of sight. Fidel Castro is 79; his brother, 75.

According to one rumor, Fidel is sharing a hospital room with General Franco...

Meanwhile, there's intense discussion as to what's going on behind the scenes.

There are three possible scenarios about ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro's apparent decision to temporarily hand over power to his younger brother Raúl, two of which may lead to a lengthy withdrawal from at least some of the absolute powers he has held for nearly five decades.

• The what-you-see-is-what-you-get scenario: The Cuban regime is telling the truth, and Castro will be back in a few months, retaking control of the government when he is physically able to do so.

Supporting argument: There would be nothing terribly unusual about a 79-year-old ruler just coming back from a grueling trip abroad suffering "extreme stress" leading to a "severe intestinal crisis," as the statement signed by Castro and read over Cuban television on Monday says. And there would be nothing strange about him "temporarily handing over power" to his younger brother and most trusted lieutenant while he recovers.

• The coverup scenario: Castro is totally incapacitated, perhaps dead, and the regime made the announcement Monday to win time and get a provisional government in place.

Supporting argument: While Castro was quoted by Cuban television on Tuesday as saying that he is "in stable condition" and "in good spirits" after his operation, he was not heard nor seen on the screen. Much like when his first communiqué was made public Monday, the statement was read by a Cuban official.

If Castro were able to make Monday's announcement himself, he would have probably done it. It would have been the most reassuring signal to his followers that he was in command and that he would only step back for a limited time to undergo surgery. It didn't happen that way.

• The trial-balloon scenario: Castro made it all up to test whether anybody in his inner circle makes a wrong move, and to get rid of potential reformists who won't respect his wishes.

Supporting argument: Many Cubans on the island, used to the tricks of Cuba's secret police, tend to lend credence to this possibility. In a telephone call Tuesday, Vladimiro Roca -- a known dissident whose father was one of the founders of Cuba's Communist Party -- told me the climate in Havana is one of profound suspicion about the statement. "People are skeptical," he said. "Fidel Castro is known for not having any kind of boundaries and to do things nobody expects him to do."

Being dead could be considered in a "stable condition," and "in good spirits" could mean being pickled in formaldehyde.

Yesterday Luke asked me what was going on here in Miami; he imagined that there was some wild celebration going on. Yes, in some places, especially if there was a TV camera crew in the neighborhood, but for the rest of the community there’s been a lot of somber discussion and furtive phone calls as rumors fly. I am convinced that when Castro hops the twig things are going to get worse in Cuba, not better, for at least a while. There will be a lot of uncertainty and a lot of people will want to get out of Havana, especially those who were either high up in the government and don’t want to see if the populace turns nasty, which means they’ll call out the guard; and of course they’ll crack down on the excuse that we’re just over the horizon waiting to invade. Expect a lot of rafters to try to get out.

If the embargo was lifted tomorrow, expect to see a lot of internal struggle as those who came to Miami try to go back to reclaim their property. They will be greeted with scorn by those who toughed it out, and the ex-pats will find themselves in a country that doesn’t have working plumbing. The younger generation won’t want to go back; you think they’ll give up their Lexuses and cell phones to live in a place were the biffy is a bucket in the corner and the newest car in town is a 1959 Buick? I think not.

This nation's history with Castro is a testament to the folly of making our foreign policy personal or at least about the man, not the system. Castro is/was a horrible guy no doubt, but it kind of makes it odd to be able to make nice with the Chinese – remember Tiananmen Square – or the Vietnamese – remember the war – and yet still battle the Cold War as if it was 1955 in Cuba. This isn’t a partisan issue; both parties have had their heads handed to them for even appearing to make a move towards reconciliation. If it wasn’t for los historicos here in Miami, we’d have had McDonald’s in Havana in 1964, and we wouldn’t be on the outside looking in when the millions of Cubans suddenly want to buy car parts.

There’s a thought: the richest guy in the world will be the guy who opens the first NAPA store in Cuba.

It's going to get wet in Antigua.

Tropical Storm Chris, the third named storm of the 2006 Atlantic hurricane season, developed early Tuesday near the Leeward Islands, forecasters said.

Chris had sustained winds near 40 miles per hour, just above the threshold for a tropical storm, according to the National Hurricane Center.

A tropical storm warning was posted for the islands of Antigua, Barbuda, Anguilla, St. Kitts, Nevis, Saba, St. Eustatius, St. Barthelemy and St. Martin.

A tropical storm watch was issued for Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

At 5 a.m., Chris was centered about 175 miles east of Antigua and was moving west-northwest near 9 mph, forecasters said. The storm was on track to pass over or near the northernmost Leeward Islands by early Wednesday, according to the hurricane center. The area where the warning was issued was in the open Atlantic about 1,100 miles southeast of Miami.

An aircraft was expected to fly into the region Tuesday and get a better estimate on the storm. It was not expected to form into a hurricane, forecasters said.

"We don't anticipate this system will explode and become a hurricane or anything like that," said Stacy Stewart, hurricane specialist. "This type of storm is not going to be a significant wind producer, but it will produce heavy rainfall because it is moving slow, which could produce flash flooding and mud slides."

We knew the lull wouldn't last, but it doesn't look like we need to batten down here in South Florida.

Today is the official launch of the Florida Progressive Coalition, of which this blog is a founding member. We invite you to join us here, even if you're not in Florida.

Here's the plan as outlined by founder Kenneth Quinnell:

Florida is a blue state. Yes, I know that our governor is a Republican, the legislature is controlled by Republicans, our congressional delegation is dominated by Republicans and one of our two senators is a Republican. But there are more Floridians registered as Democrats. And on the issues, there is no doubt that Floridians are significantly more liberal than conservative. I’ve posted about this before, but the evidence is quite clear. When given a chance to vote on the issues, Floridians vote in the more progressive direction almost always.

So what’s the problem? If Floridians are more progressive, then why are our politicians Republicans? There are several reasons for this, today I’ll talk about the first.

Any examination of Florida would show you that there are many hard-working, committed, knowledgeable and energetic activists. A closer look would show you that most of these activists are working independently or in small groups and doing very little to work together toward fixing Florida’s problems. And there seems to be an over-emphasis on national issues and politicians to the detriment and ignorance of what’s happening in the Sunshine State.

But national and state issues are intricately linked, especially in Florida, and any successful attempt at influencing national issues will start at the local and state level. But if our activists aren’t working together, it can’t be done.

So, part one of the Florida Progressive Coalition’s plan to improve our state and country and fight the right-wing that is attempting to destroy both is to get the groups and individuals in Florida working together. We’re working on a comprehensive list of all statewide and local organizations working to move our state in a more progressive direction. Once we complete the list, we’ll work on getting those groups in contact with each other and working together on the issues. If we are separate, we all lose on the issues, if we work together, very little we individually find important is contradictory, so we can combine our efforts and we’ll all be successful.

The first step is communication. We want each of the groups across the state to let us know what is important to them. We want them to tell us what issues they’re working on. We want them to provide us with information for our Wiki and post to our blog. No one knows more about the issues that the groups devoted to them. And we want to widen their audience and get them to be the audience for other progressive groups, too. You don’t have to be a Floridian to help us out, either. We accept help from anyone interested in moving Florida in a more progressive direction.

Read the rest of Part 1 here, and follow up with Part 2 and Part 3.

Florida's image in recent elections has taken a beating, and this year's Senate race promises more vaudeville. But, as Kenneth states and a lot of us believe, there is a lot that can be done to wrest Florida from the jaws of ignominy and ignorance. We also hope that the movement we start here will spread to other states where common sense and sensibility will take the place of superstition and fearmongering in the halls of government.

Big news out of Havana:

In a stunning development, Cuban leader Fidel Castro temporarily ceded presidential power to brother Raúl Castro due to "an intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding" that required "complicated surgery," according to a letter read Monday night on Cuban television.

The letter, reportedly signed by the Cuban leader at 6:22 p.m. and announced after 9 p.m., said that Castro was assigning his top duties to his brother because Cuba is "threatened by the United States government."

It is the first time that Castro is known to have ceded power, even temporarily, since he seized control of Cuba on Jan. 1, 1959. His regime, one of the most brutally repressive of modern times, also stood as one of the most enduring.

When Fidel Castro sneezes, it's party time on Calle Ocho in the heart of Little Havana in Miami.

Minutes after the announcement from Havana, news spread like electronic wildfire, with countless hands reaching simultaneously for telephones and television remotes.

Cuban Americans celebrated on Calle Ocho and Broward, Hialeah and Sweetwater, a prelude of the pandemonium that could envelope Miami when Castro's death is announced, whenever that may be.

"We just wish him [Castro] a slow and painful death," Lourdes Cambo said, rage and hate filling her eyes. Across the street from Versailles restaurant, Teresita Del Cueto said Castro's time had come.

"It's time for him to pay for all the suffering he has caused, not only to Cuban people but the whole world," del Cueto said. "He separated many families, he caused a lot of suffering. the son of a ---- has run the country as if it was his farm."

While many Miamians popped beers, partied and vented decades of pent-up angst, other exiles who watch Cuba more closely were more cautious.

Ninoska Pérez-Castellón, a commentator on Radio Mambi and stalwart anti-Castro hard-liner, could barely sustain the glee in her voice during an interview. But still, she didn't say IT.

"IT" in Miami is best translated for the layperson in this way: ding dong, the witch is dead.

"I think the moment has arrived, but we can't even savor the moment," said Pérez-Castellón, who interviewed president Bush earlier Monday morning in an exclusive interview. "We don't want to go out and start saying anything because it's not confirmed. It would be irresponsible to fuel that. Maybe they are just buying time in Cuba before taking that step."

Ding dong...

My guess is that Castro has some form of intestinal cancer and is probably done for, if he isn't already dead. If so, there will be a lot of celebrating -- work should be interesting today with my Cuban exile colleagues -- but other than a lot of celebration, not much is going to change in terms of things such as the embargo or the lifting of travel restrictions to Cuba. They can't just be lifted with the stroke of a pen, and there's nothing that says that Raul Castro isn't going to be as much of a dictator as his brother; he could even be worse.

But for a lot of Cubans here in Miami, for the moment it doesn't really matter what happens next. For them, it's personal. It's not so much the dictatorship they despise -- life in Cuba before Castro wasn't an exercise in Jeffersonian democracy -- but it's the way of life that they lost to the communist dictatorship, and they want revenge. Some still harbor the misty idea that they can go back and reclaim their property and pick up where they left off in 1959. And that, if anything, has been what has kept Castro in power all these years. If it hadn't been for the implacable hatred of the man in the hearts of a powerful lobby, we could have ended the embargo years ago, flooded Cuba with McDonald's and Wal-Mart and seen the economy of the country transformed from a showcase of Khrushchev-era starvation into one of the most productive countries in the hemisphere. Communism would be as quaint and as bothersome as it is for the booming economies of China and Vietnam; both countries with whom we managed to make nice after decades of hostilities and war.

Instead, the embargo and emnity kept Castro in power; providing him with an easy scapegoat for all the ills that befell the people of Cuba. No electricity today? Blame the yanquis. A poor sugar crop? It's a CIA plot. A crackdown on dissent? That's because they're in the thrall of the Cuban Mafia in Miami. So if there's anyone that Castro can thank for his longevity as the hemisphere's last full-tilt dictator, it's the folks who were celebrating last night on Calle Ocho.