Arf.

Howard Dean was credited with giving the establishment Democrats a set of balls again. It appears that they are already beginning to shrivel. While there are a few stalwart voices, we are offered a swath of opinion that is compliant, co-opted, apologetic and squeamish. Check out this miserable blather in Bob Herbert's New York Times editorial (emphasis added):

I kept staring at Ms. Reichman and Ms. Curnow [aka "donut-bumpers"], trying to locate the threat that others perceive in relationships like theirs. But they never came across as menacing. They just looked happy.

And further along, he continues:

Mr. Rutkowski is a grant coordinator, and Mr. Harper is a biochemist. They met 22 years ago in a church choir.

The opponents of gay marriage are on the wrong side of history. The interests of civilization are not served by driving mature love underground. And the interests of the United States, which is supposed to be the quintessence of a free society, are not served by enshrining bigotry in law.

The other day I saw a photo on my assistant's computer screen of two women in wedding dresses: Joanna Tessler, a Manhattan real estate agent, and Nicoletta Sellas, a psychology intern at the Bronx Psychiatric Center. Their arms are raised high in the air, and they are dancing joyfully in the aftermath of their marriage ceremony in Miami on Valentine's Day. It's an absolutely beautiful photo. The wedding guests are laughing and applauding.

"Bliss" would have been an appropriate caption. Why anyone would want to turn the people in that picture into outlaws is beyond me.

What the…!? Shouldn't creepy, lice-infested, impoverished, immature malcontents be allowed to get married too? Isn't that the point here – to protect a person's right to happiness, regardless of his or her ability (or lack thereof) to demonstrably conform? A quick glance at Mark Adnum's brilliant review of 1993's largest loaf of cinematic crap, Philadelphia, makes it pretty clear that not a whole fuckuvalot has changed in the last 11 years:

Good gays are clean cut, asexual yuppies who work hard, do the right thing, and most especially don’t do anything dirty or sexually confronting - they just hug, and emote...Good gays are welcome into the American fold, if they behave themselves, and generally act like well-raised children. Bad gays who have sex with strangers and go to places that only adults go to are not welcome in the fold.

The gay community needs someone who is willing to actually fight the mainstream culture on this issue. A gay Malcolm X. Yeah. "Malcolm KY" has a nice ring to it.

As mentioned earlier, today is the tenth anniversary of the death of Bill Hicks. And here's a news story that he would have loved:

Oral Sex Causes Cancer

Great, like my girlfriend needs another excuse.

Ah, it's that time again. The Republicans are burbling and cooing and starting to split their zippers. The "Passion" movie, Lent, the "defense" of marriage, Clear Channel yanking up the jackboots…that's riiiight, The Culture War is Back!

Apparently, sometime during the past three years Republicans downed one too many snifters of victory. In their tipsy delirium, they've quite clearly gone bonkers. It's as if they've completely forgotten that the 1992 Republican National Convention had ever taken place. No…that's not it. It's like…let's see. It's like they're unaware that Kant's Critique of Pure Reason was ever written. Yeah. It's like that.

I've been anxiously awaiting the complete meltdown of Fox News, and I've got a feeling that 2004 is my lucky year. No matter your political views, a human person can only take so much mindless flag waving, gay-bashing, infantilizing, preachy finger pointing, and corporate rim-jobbing. After awhile, no matter how rough your constitution, you can't help but burp up a little vomit.

And so here we are, fresh on the heels of a bogus war in Iraq, poised to charge back into the trenches of an unwinnable culture war. Charge on Mr. Bush, you big, dumb Icarus. Charge on.

In the latest issue of The Nation, on page 31, there is a full-page, full-color ad for Fox News, touting that Fox gets better ratings for Democratic events than CNN and shows graphs of Nielsen figures.

Of course the ad is misleading -- it's Fox. More specifically, Fox is the highest-rated cable news network period, and saying that on January 19, 2004 from 8 to 10 pm, Fox had higher ratings for Iowa Caucus coverage is disingenuous. Fox no doubt had better ratings than CNN on January 18 and January 20, too.

All that goes without saying, though. Here's the real question:

WHY THE FUCK IS THERE A FULL-PAGE FOX NEWS AD IN THE NATION?

Does Fox really think that the sophisticated, liberal, Eric Alterman-loving readers of The Nation will be swayed to watch Fox News? Not likely. I'd venture to say that liberals are getting their news from newspapers and the internet, and conservatives watch cable news. Of course cable news skews right -- they're serving their views.

And how does it help Fox News to give The Nation ad revenue? I once heard Moby say that he doesn't mind hearing his song in a car commercial because he'll then just take that royalty check and give it to an environmental lobbyist group promoting clean air legislation. It's an expensive ad -- full-color in a black-and-white, 40-page magazine. I hope The Nation puts that money to good, anti-Fox-News use.

On facing page 30, there's an article about Charles de Gaulle. It's all so confusing.

I think it's important that the President's position on gay marriage be clarified. As I understand it, his wants marriage to be a state entered into only by a man and a woman. It needn't make any difference whether the man or woman be gay. So, gay people can, with the full support of the President (and toothless, creationist, evangelical Christians), get married. A gay dude can marry a gay chick and BINGO!...legally sanctioned gay marriage. No, they probably won't raise a family. They probably won't be terribly happy. Still, since marriage is an institution that "promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society", it'd be a good thing. Or a least the best of bad choices. It may not be a marriage based on love, but that's not really the point anyway. If it were, we'd be discussing a constitutional amendment to assure that people actually love each other. Which is just silly. And Lord God knows we don't want to look silly...especially while discussing homonuptials.

Today's Weekly Review was top-flight. One of the better blurbs therein:

Governor Scharzenegger [sic] said that he would support a constitutional amendment to permit immigrants to become president. "Look at the contribution that people like Hennry Kissinger have made, Madeleine Albright."

Kissinger? Oh Arnold…tsk tsk tsk.

It's about time. Brian Wilson To Release Lost Classic SMiLE In Fall 2004

Yes, all of us civil-liberties-loving human beings should be outraged that Bush is backing a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. And yes, we should give Hell to any elected official who supports it.

But rest assured -- it won't pass. Let's revisit middle school civics class:

Nearly every amendment to the Constitution concerning the rights of citizens has been to provide more rights. The Bill of Rights gave us all sorts of crazy rights, like religion and guns (two great tastes that go great together). The 13th Amendment abolished slavery. The 15th Amendment removed race as a barrier to voting (though it took another 94 years before the 24th Amendment abolished poll taxes). The 19th gave women the right to vote, and the 26th lowered the voting age to 18.

In fact, only two amendments specifically take rights away from American citizens:

The 18th Amendment. This amendment took away our right to get piss drunk. After crime increased, the enforcement of prohibition law got crazy, and states and local governments saw how much tax money they were losing, the 18th Amendment was quickly repealed by the 21st.

The 22nd Amendment. That's the one that limits a President to two terms. I, for one, think that if the will of the American people is to keep the President we have beyond eight years, then the people have the right to vote their heart. Of course, legally, I'm full of shit since citizens don't actually vote for President. I should, however, have a right to vote for Electors who represent the current President if I think that Commander-in-Chief is doing a great job.

We won't see the repealing of the Electoral College or the 22nd Amendment anytime soon -- with a polarized nation, such a repeal would never get the majorities needed. An amendment requires not only two-thirds majority in both houses but then the ratification of three-fourths of the states. (There's also a call for a Constitutional Convention, but it's never been tried, and no one even really knows how to do it.)

And it is for the same reason that we will not see a 28th Amendment banning gay marriage. Such majorities would be impossible to capture right now, and even if it did pass the house and senate, it's doubtful the Amendment would get the support of the majority of states -- many states may even see it as more income in marriage license fees. Plus, the Amendment would pass the House and Senate with a customary seven-year time limit for ratification, a clause usually tacked on to avoid the 203 years it took to ratify the 27th Amendment. The seven-years would expire, and the issue will be back in the hands of the states.

In the meantime, states that refuse to ratify the Amendment may even start handing out marriage licenses to gay couples in defiance like San Francisco has. The Amendment would expire, and states all over the country would be forced to honor such licenses. Case closed.

Bush is simply blowing some smoke into the asses of his supporters. The Amendment will not be ratified. Presidents have no Executive power to put into an Amendment's ratification anyway. Even if the Amendment passed the House and Senate, the Amendment would hang in State limbo for awhile, and thanks to the 22nd Amendment (or better yet, thanks to the 12th), Bush wouldn't have to deal with the ramifications of the expiration date anyway.

While we're writing Congressmen and Senators about this issue, we also need to tell Democrats to pick a side and stop pussyfooting around this issue. I don't support gay marriage but I do support civil unions is very hypocritical. It also says I don't believe we should put language into the Constitution to deny civil rights to a specific group of people, but I don't believe gays should have the same rights as everyone else. How does that make any sense?

(This site was invaluable to this post.)

UPDATE: My often brilliant girlfriend adds:

the real key to keeping this kind of legislation out of the books - is by first amending the human rights act to include gays and lesbians - because currently in 43 states it is still legal to deny medical care - refuse hotel accommodations - deny bank loans - fire someone from employment - deny service in a restaurant - to anyone perceived to be gay. by the way - thats true in illinois too. you're just lucky you live in cook county. just dont cross the county line.

Thursday is the tenth anniversary of the death of Bill Hicks. Just thought you should know.

Let's make this simple. Here's the simple truth about jobs in America.

You’re beautiful baby. Hot. Like a burning bottle of gasoline. With a rag jammed in it. Yeah. You’re a bomb baby. You make my junk ache, baby. You make my junk swell up like a rooster’s breast at dawn…Yeah, like a cock’s boob. Morning wood. I feel it sliding down my leg, inside, warm and goopy like spit. Just the idea of you split open like a pear on a bed of mesclun lettuce makes me…Uh…wait a second. Sweetie? Is this…hello? Oh crap. Uh…is this? Oh my god. Oh my god. Oh my God! This isn’t…(shit!) This is the blog, isn’t it!? MotherFUC…(pause) Ahem…(pause) The problem with Kerry is that he has a senatorial record which, like a majority of previous senatorial candidates for President, will ultimately keep him from winning. Edwards, however, as a first term Senator, hasn’t developed a substantial enough record to define him as an “insider”; this is how Edwards has been able to avoid the curse of the Senate. (pause) Well? Was that pithy enough? …don’t answer, please. I know how this works. Here’s an obliquely referenced, profound, but largely irrelevant quote:

The important thing is to pull yourself up by your hair, to turn yourself inside out and see the world with fresh eyes.

Yes, I’m dazzled by own profundity. Aren’t you?

Here's some hot gossip:

Nearly two decades after graduating from Yale, [Naomi] Wolf is taking on her alma mater and the patriarchy, in the form of eminent literary scholar Harold Bloom. According to sources at New York magazine and Yale University, in the course of reporting an article slated to run in next week’s issue, Ms. Wolf has been claiming that Mr. Bloom sexually harassed her while she was an undergraduate 20 years ago.

Now that's just pathetic. Really. Let's just be glad that no matter what happened 20 years ago, nothing actually came of it.

While international terrorism has certainly changed the way we operate in the world, and as much as we pride ourselves on our ability to quickly assimilate to new environments and to improvise solutions to new problems, there are some issues as old as our democracy (which are apparent in Iraq) which we simply have not been able to wrap our collective heads around. Daily we get news about the progress (or lack thereof) the provisional government is having (or not having) in establishing a democracy in Iraq. Against this familiar backdrop, it is worth noting why our imperial/colonial inspirations have always spluttered and died (i.e., Cuba, the Philippines). It's not simply that we're bad at it. It's largely because the nature of our own society is anathema to it. Republicanism has long argued that democracy is not something that is simply bestowed, but that if people are to be allowed to govern themselves, they must demonstrate that they are both capable and deserving of self-government. Bush has said that the Iraqis meet this standard. Unfortunately, his statements on the subject are the quintessence of empty rhetoric (how would he know?). Nevertheless, the opposing view holds that all people are, by the very fact of their existence, entitled to govern themselves; to suggest that they must subject their character, ethics, and principles to some arbiter smacks of the worst kind of elitism. In this country, we are continually fighting this battle in numerous little dust-ups: Should all felons be disenfranchised in perpetuity? If voters in California pass a ballot measure legalizing medicinal marijuana, should their votes be counted? Are parents capable of determining for themselves what their children can and can't watch, or should the FCC make the call? At what age should a child be entrusted to make his or her own decisions regarding sex, alcohol, etc? If, as the those who demand at least a minimum standard of civic responsibility from citizenry in order that they may enjoy self-governance, we are to be such an arbiter in Iraq (as we currently are), who's standards ought we use? Theirs? Ours? Clearly, in places like Haiti and in the burnt-out roadsides of rural Iraq we can point to people and say, "Here are people who are not capable of governing themselves". Once again, however, we find ourselves with little choice but to let them; regardless of the consequences. We want them to be free, but cannot make them so. We want them to be responsible, but cannot make them so. We want to believe that every human being yearns for freedom, but see evidence to the contrary in abundance. We must either rule with absolute authority, as Britain and the Caesars did, or get out of the game altogether. The problems are old, and as much as our leaders claim to be "thinking outside the box", there are no new solutions.

More on one of my favorite pet topics, the impending weaponization of space:

For years, the American military has spoken in hints and whispers, if at all, about its plans to develop weapons in space. But the U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan (PDF) changes all that. Released in November, the report makes U.S. dominance of the heavens a top Pentagon priority in the new century. And it runs through dozens of research programs designed to ensure that America can never be challenged in orbit -- from anti-satellite lasers to weapons that "would provide the capability to strike ground targets anywhere in the world from space."

Here's what I don't mind: goals from the document include "Protection of vital space assets" and "Denial of an adversary's access to space services." That makes sense -- we don't want anybody blowing up the International Space Station or the satellite feed that brings me Queer Eye for the Straight Guy.

Here's what freaks me out a little:

Space wargames bring together leaders and planners from the Services, the intelligence community, commercial space providers, and departments, agencies, and offices to explore the in-depth integration of space into the joint fight. These wargames explore space warfare issues in detail. They examine mission partner equities as Executive Agent for Space; generate insights for Air Force Space Command, Headquarters Air Force, and DoD transformation; and provide cadre- building by bringing together the best strategic and operational minds to focus on the future of space power.

This paragraph from page 27 of the Air Force document does much to confirm that NASA is a military operation. Bush's proposed trip to the Moon and Mars is nothing more than a way to get missile defense (or "space sharks with frickin' lasers on their heads") in orbit and line the pockets of Boeing and Lockheed.

Can't we just take one billion dollars --chump change for the Pentagon -- and give it to education? Is that too much to ask?

UPDATE: They're discussing this article over at Slashdot. Interesting insights into the physics of some of the plans (including "hypervelocity rods") and what treaties these plans may or may not violate.

I have thus far refrained from making any campaign-related predictions on the grounds that (a) such predictions would be irrelevant, (b) such predictions would likely be wrong, (c) my ability to make such predictions is itself predicated on bogus data and hearsay, and (d) I’m a natural born sissy. No more. I’m driving around with a Dean for America bumper sticker on my car, any credibility I may have had as a clairvoyant is shot. I’m free. Free to say whatever I damn well please. And I plan on saying it with gusto. Here’s the deal: Edwards is going to clean Kerry’s clock. Kerry is going to get shot, burned & buried. Stunned by Dean’s implosion, frantic to find a war hero, and simply unfamiliar with Edwards, voters understandably pulled the lever for Kerry. But when Edwards gets Kerry cornered behind a podium, all to himself, he’s going to kill him. Furthermore, I predict that Kerry will actually cry like a little girl when he is forced to concede defeat. God bless the old war horse, but he ain’t got the juice. We Dems like our politicians to have a little fire in their bellies, a touch of altruism wafting in their wake, and a youthful bounce in their gait. If Edwards beats Bush, there’ll be little to prevent him from being a two-term President. Kerry? Don’t hold your breath. Now, Edwards may seem a little hokey… and he may talk a little too much about looking out for the little guy, but that kind of talk works. It works. People always said about Clinton: “Yeah, he screws you. But at least he tells you he loves you first.” Yeah, it works.

On days like these, I'm proud to have adopted Chicago as my hometown:

Mayor Daley said Wednesday he would have 'no problem' with County Clerk David Orr issuing marriage licenses to gay couples -- and Orr said he's open to a San Francisco-style protest if a consensus can be built.

...

A devout Catholic, Daley scoffed at the suggestion that gay marriage would somehow undermine the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.

'Marriage has been undermined by divorce, so don't tell me about marriage. You're not going to lecture me about marriage. People should look at their own life and look in their own mirror. Marriage has been undermined for a number of years if you look at the facts and figures on it. Don't blame the gay and lesbian, transgender and transsexual community. Please don't blame them for it,' he said.

Just so that he's covered every single angle possible, Bush has misled us on science.

More.

My favorite line from Dean's speech today:

I also want to thank [my wife] Judy for at least promoting the debate that's needed to happen in this country for a long time about whether a woman needs to gaze adoringly at her husband or follow her own career.

It's a good speech. It will be very interesting to see where Howard Dean goes from here. I'll certainly be paying attention.

A reminder from Hunter S. Thompson about what's really at stake in this (and every) election:

George Bush went out of his way to announce formally that he went to sleep long before the end of the first half [of the Super Bowl].

What kind of all-American boy would say a stupid thing like that while he's running for re-election? Only a fool would deliberately insult the whole Football Nation, at a nervous time when polls show his Job Approval Rating plunging below 50 percent for the first time since he took office in January of 2001. That is like stabbing yourself in the back while you're preparing to fight for your life on a street corner. It is dumb, and so is the dingbat who told Bush to say it.

Ah, nothing like a little perspective. Sure, politics is a fun habit to indulge in. Being a smarty-pants can occasionally cause a warm flush of self-satisfaction. But what really boils the blood is when some pinhead decides to close the bar early, scramble the satellite feed, raise the price of chicken wings, unplug the juke box, & insult your favorite sports star. Send as many cross-eyed, masturbating, meathead goons across the Euphrates as you want, just keep the fuck away from my $1 Pabst-special orgies at the Glug-N'-Fart Saloon. I'm not being facetious. The train fare in Chicago just jumped up $.25. That bullshit man! See, Janet Jackson's "tortured nipple" matters a lot more to me than the profit margin of Halliburton because I live in the real world, not in a made-up monopoly-money world. Okay, the latest issue of The Economist matters more to my sense of civic duty…but not to my dangling, dripping genitals. And it ain't my "civic duty" that's telling me what I'll be doing tonight!

As promised, I said I wouldn't mention Howard Dean until he dropped out.

He's dropping out.

Here's an excellent summary of the Dean campaign's effect, and why Dean shouldn't just bow his head and shuffle his feet out of the room:

I wouldn't go quietly at all; I'd raise hell! I would not pledge the Deaniacs to whoever this nominee is if it's not Howard Dean. Dean is the guy that made Kerry who he is! He's the only legitimate liberal in this race, the only guy that didn't lie about what he and liberals believe. For this, Dean has been savaged, mistreated and destroyed by his own party much like they would go after a Republican.

Believe it or not, that was written by Rush Limbaugh. He must have been high.

So what's going to happen now? With a database of rabid supporters proven to make tiny donations whenever asked, willing to plan and organize on their own, and confident that Bush can be defeated in November, Dean can't just drop out. He needs to give direction to those people.

And that direction seems to be John Edwards:

The former Vermont governor sought out rival John Edwards for a private meeting Sunday night in Milwaukee. After what Democratic sources described as a friendly but inconclusive conversation, Dean said the two men should talk again today. The implication was that there could be ways for Dean to help a candidate he has said he prefers over Sen. John F. Kerry.

I vastly prefer Edwards over Kerry, too, despite Edwards' lack of experience. The Deaniacs becoming Edwardsiacs is far more plausible than becoming Kerriacs. Bush and the Republicans should be far more scared of Edwards, too -- Edwards has a more populist message. He's Southern. He's more consistent. And he's far less boring on the stump. Edwards could be another Bill Clinton, and Edwards may not even need Perot to suck votes away from the incumbent. Edwards has a fighting chance, and if those of us who supported Dean get behind Edwards, we could bump boring old Kerry, who when the Republican fists start waving come October, won't stand a chance! Edwards! Edwards! Edwards!

Stop.

Here's some realism for you: Edwards has 171 delegates. Kerry as 494. (Actually, 494.5 -- I'm not sure how that works, but the source is Fox News.) Not counting delegates? Okay, how about Kerry has won all but two primaries so far?

And then there's the exit polling. I've boldfaced the deal breakers, the things that give Kerry the huge advantage over Edwards:

Kerry did slightly better among women than men, and led among blacks by 4-to-1. He tied Edwards among men and among whites. Kerry was more likely to get support from Democrats, those without college educations and with lower incomes. Kerry had a 50-point lead among voters who most wanted a candidate who could beat President Bush, and he led by 20 point among those who thought the economy was poor. He also had the advantage among voters who said health care and the war in Iraq were the top issues.

Don't get me wrong. Edwards has some advantages, but not much:

Edwards had more than a 10-point lead among independents and an even larger lead among Republicans, who made up a larger group than in any of the other primaries this year - more than one in 10 voters. Edwards held more than a 10-point lead among those who said the economy and jobs were the top issues. He had a 30-point lead among voters who said the most important quality was having a positive message, and more than a 10-point advantage among those voters who said it was most important to have a candidate who cares about people like them.

Anything is possible. Considering how the Dean machine imploded and how quickly it happened, Edwards stands a fighting chance. Does a close race help the ultimate candidate in November? I'm not sure. I just hope that come March 16, I still have a choice.

Howard Dean cannot and should not disappear. Can he translate his campaign into a MoveOn.org type of organization? Can he help shape the discourse and the agenda of the Democratic party? Can he host a talk show better than Alan Keyes? (Yes, but Dean really needs to learn to close his mouth when he's not speaking.) We'll see what he has to say this afternoon.

UPDATE: Wonkette takes a different, uh, take on Edwards.

Developing...

The Kinyarwandan word for "computer" is "mudasobwa." Translated, it means "something or someone that does not make mistakes." Here's hoping Rwandans don't buy cheap RAM, or their language is screwed.

I can't say that I fully understand the fervor over a possible Ralph Nader bid. The Nationhad an open letter to Nader (subscription only, so no link):

You have said your candidacy could actually help Democrats by raising issues against Bush that a Democratic candidate would avoid and by boosting turnout for good candidates for the House and Senate, where the slender bulwarks against Bushism must be reinforced. But these arguments do not compel a candidacy by you. As a public citizen fighting for open debates and rallying voters to support progressive Democrats for Congress, or good independents or Greens for that matter, you can have a far more productive impact than as a candidate dealing with recriminations about being a spoiler or, worse, an egotist. And the very progressives distressed by the prospect of your candidacy would contribute eagerly to have that voice amplified.

There's this Flash animation arguing that if the people who voted for Nader had voted for Gore, Gore would have won. And I myself have said that I'll smack any stupid ass that votes for Nader.

My panties, however, are not in a bunch over the Nader issue.

He'd most likely be running as an independent, which would rattle some Greens. Die hard Green Party members are idealists who believe in what's right. And right now, what's right is electing someone other than George Bush.

Also, the folks who voted Nader in 2000, especially those that thought the "Green" in Green Party meant marijuana, I dare say never would have turned off their Playstation long enough to vote in the first place. Yes, that's just a hunch, and a hunch that I hope mischaracterizes the multitudes who voted for Nader in 2000 (it certainly does characterize many of those that I know), but the truth is Nader brought in a lot of new people. I hope those people new to the political process in 2000 know that had they voted Gore, our civil liberties wouldn't have so many bootprints in them now. Perhaps they'll vote this time around.

Plus, if Nader runs, he'll look like an ass. How dare he do such a thing this time in our history? A Nader candidacy now would make him look not like an advocate or a populist but like a self-serving, egotistical opportunist. Kind of hard to be a progressive when you're obviously so selfish.

No, Nader shouldn't run. But even if he does, no one will want to vote for him anyway. I'm not worried.

For anyone interested in exploring the dark side of the hydrogenous moon, Richard Manning has an article currently on the shelves in Harper's Magazine
(The Oil We Eat: Following the Food Chain Back to Iraq), which paints a bleak picture of what increased ethanol production (among other factors) has done to America's natural resources & ecology. (Here's an excerpt and a heads-up on his book.) On the surface, Manning sounds a lot like a man who is convinced that the world is simply going to hell. However, there are salient points in his article about "catastrophic" agriculture and the disastrous effects of nitrogen run-off into the Mississippi. The point: large agricultural conglomerates are not the Green saviors they are currently marketing themselves as. Archer Daniels Midland (ADM) is not the "Supermarket to the World"; Exxon and Shell and BP Amoco are not looking for alternative energy out of an altruistic yearning to "make the world a better place". Even so, while this latest article makes some excellent points, on a micro-level, the devastating article published in 1999 by Harpers on the sugar industry still is the best I've read to date on the topic of agricultural malfeasance. Of course, regardless of the evidence, the corporate no-necks will continue to issue their flaccid denials of "any wrongdoing".

Atrios talks about Larry Flynt's plans to publicize the abortion the President paid for, comparing it to Matt Drudge's Kerry adultery thing:

I'd also like the media to consider one thing - compare Flynt's batting average with Drudge's. While the media will jump to condemn Flynt, they should recognize that Flynt has higher journalistic standards than any of them for this kind of thing. He doesn't run with things until he has multiple sources. This story may or may not be true, but frankly I have a lot more faith in the accuracy of Flynt's reporting than I do in a lot of the mainstream press. The recent week has only re-confirmed that.

Let's remember that Drudge first became a celebrity not because of Monica, but because he falsely accused Sidney Blumenthal of beating his wife. And the media sided with Drudge.

I agree with Atrios completely, but he does overlook one obvious point:

Matt Drudge rakes muck for a living. Larry Flynt prints smut for a living. One publishes stories so incendiary and false, liberals cringe. One publishes photos so anatomically explicit, gynecologists cringe.

Yes, journalists should have -- I can't believe I'm about to use this phrase -- the high standards of Larry Flynt. However, the headline in the New York Times will not be "President Paid for Abortion." The headline will be, "Pornographer Accuses President of Paying for Abortion."

I'm don't think Atrios is arguing that the story should sprout some legs. I don't think it should, either, as I hate seeing this sort of gossip invade political discourse. (Military records are fair game, genitals are not). What I'm saying is that this story probably never achieve great heights -- the reporter is the story, and the story itself will be drowned by that.

Or maybe the story will get huge. Bill O'Reilly would love to scream at a paraplegic pornographer. Bill Bennett could do some appearances denouncing smut and muckraking (muckraking that's aimed at conservatives, that is). Countdown makes it #5. Then it's on all the news stations, the late night hosts make jokes about it, The Daily Show does an entire piece on it, blah-blah-blah. Whether or not Larry Flynt's name is permanently attached to the story, the point is the story is out there, and Flynt knows that.

Part of me says that the public is not beyond being educated to learn that blowjobs and adulterous affairs and abortions say nothing of a candidate's ability of lead. And part of me says God bless Larry Flynt for playing the same game as the Republicans. Serves them right, after all.

I certainly hope that one day, this game will never have to be played like this. All I'll ever have is hope.

More hydrogen power news, and this is the best yet:

Researchers say they have produced hydrogen from ethanol in a prototype reactor small enough and efficient enough to heat small homes and power cars.

...

The researchers say their reactor will produce hydrogen exclusively from ethanol and do it cheaply enough so people can buy hydrogen fuel cells for personal use.

They also believe their technology could be used to convert ethanol to hydrogen at fuel stations when cars that run solely on hydrogen enter the mass market.

If this works, these guys deserve a Nobel Prize. It solves the distribution problem and the cost problem, and it helps American farmers. Hydrogen power, here we come.

What's with all the pundits dismissively gushing "yeah, yeah…we know that, but…" whenever someone reiterates that Kerry is a "war hero"? They know that they cannot weather a sustained comparison.

God bless Paul Krugman:

Some of his critics hope that the AWOL issue will demolish the Bush myth, all at once. They're probably too optimistic — if it were that easy, the tale of Harken Energy would have already done the trick. The sad truth is that people who have been taken in by a cult of personality — a group that in this case includes a good fraction of the American people, and a considerably higher fraction of the punditocracy — are very reluctant to give up their illusions. If nothing else, that would mean admitting that they had been played for fools.

Still, we may be on our way to an election in which Mr. Bush is judged on his record, not his legend. And that, of course, is what the White House fears.

Today, a rare thing: a book review. Why rare? Because I'm illiterate. Nevertheless, in the face of this seemingly insurmountable obstacle, today I finished Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Robert A. Caro. Nicholas Lemann makes this point in his review (which is excellent, though a little pompous):

Caro does his research, quite obviously, with the goal of getting as close as possible to complete knowledge.

True. Which is ultimately what makes this book worthwhile. While some of the finest biographies I have read are little more than thinly veiled hagiographies, such biographies are usually about people whom I have previously admired. I chose Caro's book because I didn’t know a great deal about either L.B.J. or the intricate history and machinations of the U.S. Senate, and it delivered on both accounts. While all biographies are written with some degree of bias (if an author didn't have an opinion about his subject, what would be the point?), Caro has done a splendid job of confining his biases to the outer limits of his subject. Clearly possessed of a liberal bias, Caro has masterfully reconstructed the inner-workings of the U.S. Senate during the 1950's with a hunger for absolute truth. His dense research and scorching criticisms of Johnson (and other prominent Democrats) free his prose from his own bias and give it a credibility it would otherwise lack. To be fair, when I say that Caro has a liberal bias, I'm referring to the fact he applauds programs like Roosevelt's New Deal and civil rights legislation. Yes, this constitutes bias in an era wherein editorials appear with regularity calling for a total repeal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act…but I digress. Ultimately, aside from the fascinating characteristics of Johnson's personality, the crux of Caro's epic is less focused on the lineaments of power than on the painfully detailed exegeses of the legislative process itself. The result tends to reveal the fulcrums of power, almost magically, as the latent slag of ambition.

I confess that I have unknowingly longed for this book for years. The 1950’s in America is often depicted as an era of “innocence”, where people skip happily through life in a teenage Neverland (replete with faces scrubbed so clean they glow). Alternately, the 50’s are depicted as the “antidote” to this fantasy: fraught with prejudice, culturally stifling, and more oppressive and hierarchical than Victorian England. Caro brings us a world that is startlingly familiar; perhaps because the Senate functions today largely because of the way it functioned in the late 1950’s – the way L.B.J. made it function. In this sense, I doubt if there is a more readable account of how the U.S. Senate works.

As for the omissions and spin implicit in any political biography, well…Caro’s tortured explanations of when, why, and with whom Johnson would use the words “Nigger”, “Nigra”, and “Negro”, pale in comparison to, say, the overt whitewash job Edmund Morris is likewise doing in his developing triptych to Theodore Roosevelt. But that’s another story, isn’t it? In any case, even if one is disinclined to pour over detailed descriptions of legislative battles, it is worth checking this book out of the library if only for the first 100 pages: a wonderful condensed history of the U.S. Senate.

It also made me giggle to read how great bundles of cash flowed like Texas crude from Brown & Root to L.B.J., were transmogrified, and sent back from whence they came. Viva la Halliburton!

For those souls still unfamiliar with Jane Mayer's article in The New Yorker, I implore you to devote a few minutes to it's contents. This article cannot be linked too often. The Democrats are not throwing empty rhetoric at the GOP: this story has legs.

The war has begun.

Y'know, for a party that is opposed to gay marriage, celebrates Christian moral values, and opposes all of the sex portrayed in the media, the Republicans sure do talk about the penises of Democrats a lot.

UPDATE: Did I mention that the war has begun? Yes, Arlo, you mentioned that the war has begun.

I have a super busy day today, so in lieu of giving thought to a post, here comes another episode of...

LINK-O-RAMA!

Joe Trippi started a blog.

The name of today's Bush propagandist is Col. William Campenni. He's a big fat liar.

Buy a Mac that helped make history.

Right now, Karl Rove is thinking, It may be the first human clone, but at least it's not gay marriage.

Economic recovery my ass.

A Simpsons movie is in the works. It could be brilliant (also brilliant). It could also suck total ass. Cross your stubby yellow fingers.

Unlike Arlo, I'm keeping my Howard Dean paraphernalia on display. Garance Franke-Ruta writes:

On Saturday night, I walked down the hall in the Greater Richmond Convention Center with Michael Stephen Myers, 57, of Virginia Beach, a Vietnam veteran and member of Kerry's travelling [sic] band of brothers." See, he's on point," Myers told me, indicating a man leading the grey-haired veterans from a Kerry rally to the convention room where the Democratic Party of Virginia was holding its annual Jefferson Jackson Day Dinner. "The leader always stays in the back. The point man's in front and the leader follows. And when he needs to command, he moves up front."

That's exactly what Kerry has done during the race for the Democratic nomination. While Dean played Democratic point man and took early and surprise fire, Kerry stayed at the back of the pack until it was time to make a move. And when it was time for the voting to start, he took command.

I for one am proud of our plucky little point man. Heck, I'm probably even going to vote for him – provided he doesn't drop out. Besides, a vote for a non-frontrunner is often viewed as a more potent means of sending the nominee a message. You know, let 'em know you're out there…way, way over there by the trash can. In the corner. Under the broken EXIT sign. Making a lot of irritating noise.

By the way, even though I sometimes spend too much time "blogging", it feels good to know that while I may be petty, hopelessly narcissistic, and completely irrelevant…at least I'm being productive!

Hey Stigmutha: shine on you crazy diamond!

In the upcoming primary wars and the general election, it is likely that issues like WMD and Vietnam and "special interests" will play a large role. However, the foreign policy and/or legislative legacy of a particular candidate will always be (to some degree) politically defensible. There are some records that are not. The GOP does not what to discuss Bush's record on the environment. If anything, they will try to shift focus away from this catastrophic record by declaring that it is eclipsed by the great threat of freedom-hating terrorists to our way of life. In other words, their argument will run something like this: don't complain that I'm taking a dump in your kitchen, because without my manly presence in your kitchen, your kitchen just may cease to exist!

The least we can do is insist that they wear a diaper.

When I first read about Republican senators stealing Democrat memos, I was furious. It still isn't a big story, what with Janet Jackson's boob and all. There have been developments, however. Bill Frist's senior aide, whose last name is Miranda -- it's rife with irony -- resigned, and the proceeded to whine that the memos they found detail illegal and unethical activity.

So here's the question. Let's say I break into your house, steal some shit, and leave. Then, when you accuse me of breaking in, I say, "Yeah, well I took child pornography from your living room." Are we then both guilty?

Well, yeah, but the problem is with the defense. Two wrongs don't make a right, except in politics. Two wrongs means we both look bad, so no one wins.

The British on-line nerd publication The Register also brings up the technological judicial issues surrounding this case:

Politics is dirty business, and rarely so much as in the area of patronage: appointments to sought-after federal jobs in general, and to the federal bench in particular. So it should be little surprise that, with so much at stake, one political party would want to use the insecurity inherent in computerized databases to its political advantage.

What is surprising, however, is that, caught with their hand in the cookie jar, Senate Republicans employed the tactic of blaming the victim: they said, in essence, It's your fault that we got and used your information. If successful, this tactic does not bode well for the government's ability to prosecute computer crimes, and to protect critical infrastructures.

So the plot thickens. So let's make an addition to my allegory: I break into your house, steal some shit, and leave. Then, when you accuse me of breaking in, I say, "Yeah, well I took child pornography from your living room. And you forgot to lock your front door, so I didn't break in."

This case is going to be going on for a while, and of course no one in the media will report on it. It's simply not an interesting story, what with Janet Jackson's boob and all. Here's why it's going to take long, again, from The Register:

Miranda claims it isn't stealing because you can't steal government documents, and it's not a violation of the rules because they aren't government documents. Or something like that. He also seems to argue that the password misconfiguration made the documents fair game.

...

It seems that Miranda is arguing that, when the Democratic staffers act in a political capacity, their documents no longer relate to an Agency or Department - it's just politics. Finally, Miranda seems to argue that there is no proprietary right to government documents. While he is correct that government documents are not entitled to copyright protection, this does not imply that it is therefore okay to break into a computer database and take them.

Finally, one more addition to my allegory: I break into your house, steal some shit, and leave. Then, when you accuse me of breaking in, I say, "Yeah, well I took child pornography from your living room. And you forgot to lock your front door, so I didn't break in. And because child pornography cannot be protected by copyright, therefore not entitling you to ownership, I cannot be accused of stealing."

The part that has to be proven is, of course, is intent. Was my intent to enter your home done with the express purpose of taking stuff? Of course. If I stole all your child porn and a toaster oven, then my obvious intent was to steal. Plus, even if I stumble upon the fact that your door was open, that doesn't give me the right to enter your house.

Bill Frist's office had no right to take Democratic memos from their server, even if the Dems can't take the 30 seconds to put a freaking password on it. Even if the memos show impropriety*, it doesn't mean that the Republicans shouldn't be held accountable for what they did.

*Oh, and by the way, what are these improprieties?

Conservatives have talked up the memos as proof the Democrats colluded with outside liberal groups in their choices of which Bush appellate nominees to block.

The memos also show, conservatives contend, that Hispanic lawyer Miguel Estrada was blocked largely for two reasons:

--Confirmation would have put him in line for a Supreme Court nomination, and Democrats did not want a Republican president to appoint the first Latino to that court.

--Democrats wanted to keep conservative nominees off the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals until after the University of Michigan affirmative action case was decided.

Huh. I guess the GOP has never blocked judicial nominees before.

Entertainment, politics & spirituality coalesce in an interdisciplinary bit of trivia:

In an oddly poetic coincidence, [James Caviezel, the actor portraying Christ]…was struck by lighting during the filming of Mel Gibson's "Passion". Assistant director Jan Michelini was also hit (for the second time during the shoot). A crew member said "I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears."

One more thing about the Russert interview. I noticed one moment unlike all the rest. It was a moment of revealing clarity for Bush.

Russert: Are you prepared to lose?

President Bush: No, I'm not going to lose.

Russert: If you did, what would you do?

President Bush: Well, I don't plan on losing.

It was then, when Bush said, "I'm not going to lose." Absolute, 100% unequivocal certainty. This was the Bush his admirers always talk about. It was interesting, and chilling, to me that it was only when the subject of his re-election came up that this side of his personality was exhibited with such utter rawness. I was instantly reminded of the image of him sitting calmly with his father on the eve of the 2000 election, smiling affably, the very picture of ease and assurance: even with Florida on the cusp of a re-count. Whatever else he may be, he is man who has complete confidence in the powerful forces that have never failed to deliver the greatest rewards this life can offer.

The President's performance yesterday (transcript), while adroitly analyzed by minds far more nimble than my own, is nonetheless deserving of at least one more irrelevant response. It is no great revelation that Bush is perpetually at a loss for words, so it was no great surprise to hear his repetitive rambling about how "bad" Saddam Hussein is. If anything, it was just plain weird to see a sitting president utterly incapable of defending the principles and policies he used to justify a war he is currently waging. After reading various editorials of Bush's interview by conservatives (many of which express a grave and gathering disappointment), it becomes increasingly clear that such punditry is irrelevant. In the past, Bush has relied on pundits and editorialists and media whores to sell the finer points of his policies to the public: this is less an option when the issue is war. A President needs to personally articulate the cause the war, as Bush did in speeches from the Oval Office and from the podium at the U.N. in the days before the invasion of Iraq. Such is the reason why he appeared on Meet the Press. The fact that he is a pitiful failure in this regard ought to make conservatives – at long last – wet their britches with fear and shame.

I was gonna do a big 'ol thang on the President's Meet the Press appearance, but I'm just one person with homework to do for school. So I think I'll just share with you what the Center for American Progress had to say:

CLAIM: "I believe it is essential that when we see a threat, we deal with those threats before they become imminent. It's too late if they become imminent."

FACT – ADMINISTRATION REPEATEDLY CLAIMED IRAQ WAS AN "IMMINENT THREAT": The Bush Administration repeatedly claimed that Iraq was an imminent threat before the war – not that it would "become imminent." Specifically, White House communications director Dan Bartlett was asked on CNN: "Is [Saddam Hussein] an imminent threat to US interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?" Bartlett replied, "Well, of course he is." Similarly, when White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked whether America went to war in Iraq because of an imminent threat, he replied, "Absolutely." And White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the reason NATO allies – including the U.S. - should support the defense of one of its members from Iraq was because "this is about an imminent threat." Additionally, the Administration used "immediate," "urgent" and "mortal" to describe the Iraq threat to the United States. [Source: American Progress list, 1/29/04]

Okay, I'll make a promise to you. This will be the last time I mention Howard Dean until he drops out.

Presenting Exiting Deanspace:

Dean?s campaign was never actually successful. It did many of the things successful campaigns do, of course ? got press and raised money and excited people and even got potential voters to aver to campaign workers and pollsters that they would vote for him when the time came. When the time came, however, they didn?t. The campaign never succeeded at making Howard Dean the first choice of any group of voters he faced, and it seems unlikely to do so today.

A fascinating article, if only a bit of Monday-morning quarterbacking. However, it is from the perspective of a former Deaniac, which makes it ring so true.

Presidential campaigns will always be different from now on. The Democratic party has a new and better voice, a clearer message. More people paid attention to what's wrong with our current administration. With our increasingly conservative media, would WMDs and Halliburton contracts and No Child Left Behind ever have been considered a big deal to a larger populace? I can't say for sure, but I truly believe that we owe a great deal of this cultural and political shift to the campaign of Howard Dean. He may have screamed a lot and looked so angry, but in that anger, there was a message. I think it got through. And in that respect, all of the blog entries, all of the conversations I had with friend and strangers, all of the letters I wrote to citizens of New Hampshire and Iowa, and even the $100 I gave his campaign -- none of it was in vain.

I don't feel like my hope is shattered. The numbers are looking good for Kerry, and even though I'm not a big fan of the guy, it goes without saying how much I like him compared to the other option. And who knows -- maybe Edwards can pull ahead. I like him more than Kerry. I can't help but feel like I'm settling, but I'm not. Settling would be facing another four years of Dubya.

It's time to face the truth. The button comes off my bag.

Here's something to cheer you up: Right now, the main headline at CNN reads, "Bush sets up intelligence inquiry." See, it's funny.

Let's not let the hype get in the way the hard work ahead of us this year. But it is a lovely, lovely thing to read:

Bush's 47 percent approval rating is the same as his father's at this stage in his presidency 12 years ago before he lost to Bill Clinton.

Of course, George Bush Sr. was beaten by an obscure governor. So much for that analogy.

Yesterday, I bemoaned Howard Dean's "we must win Wisconsin" plea for mercy, and said that I couldn't find any tracking polls for Wisconsin. Daily Kos found one. Dean's fucked.

UPDATE: I was too quick on the blog draw. Another Daily Kos post has the following to say, which had indeed occurred to me but was more eloquently put here:

Dean is headed for almost certain defeat (though no one will be glader than me if I'm wrong). But he did serve one critical role -- he helped the party find its voice again. It was lost. Now it's back. I cringe at what might've been had Dean not entered the race. For that, every Democrat should be grateful, even the ABD [that's "Anybody But Dean"] crowd.

The possibility remains that when Dean is out after he loses Wisconsin, Kerry returns to being a drippy pussy. (By the way, the campaign's foremost pussy endorsed Kerry today.) However, the Bush regime is in a lot of hot water, not only with Democrats over WMD, Valerie Plame, and stolen files, but many Republicans are pissed off about the budget. If Kerry and/or Edwards can keep up the populism, their chances are better than dismal.

Democrats are better politicians than Republicans. I was watching a press conference on C-Span earlier today and noticed how adroitly Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D), the vice-chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Intelligence, gently dismissed the committee’s chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts (R), without poor Pat even noticing it. Brilliant. Ol’ Jay stuck around for an additional two or three minutes answering questions.

Web page suggestion: The Degree Confluence Project.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, my knickers are in a knot about WMD. The current fracas betwixt George Tenet and David Kay reminds me of something I once heard Louis Farrakhan say: “You are like masturbators, playing with your sex organs while the world goes to hell”. Seriously. He actually said that on prime-time television. I’m not making that up. Trumps a boob, eh? Anyhoo… I was searching around for something to capture the essence of what Mr. Bush & the WMD fiasco has engendered in my heart, and after dismissing some rather cliché Bob Dylan lyrics, I came upon this passage from an old, but essential, classic novel:

. ..thou hast suckled me with a bitter milk: my moon and my son thou hast quenched for ever. And thou hast left me alone for ever in the dark ways of my bitterness: and with a kiss of ashes hast thou kissed my mouth.

I’m kidding! I don’t really feel that bad. My god, relax. As Bill Maher once said to a guest, “You oughta take a crowbar out and pry open your mind!” Or, as Howard Dean said to Tim Russert last Sunday, “I don’t support that crap!” No, I’m afraid I need to shelve my plangent homilies about Bush (as well as my anthropophagal salivating over Arlo’s glabrous and lubricious flesh), and turn my attention instead to this infant pimple on the right side of my neck. The problem with having a pimple on the neck is that there is no bone mass to mash the furuncle up against and it is therefore exceedingly difficult to extract the innards of the thing without transforming the surrounding epidermal area into a rudilent raspberry indistinguishable from a sloppily administered hickey. Just a reminder: what’s important is always (to some degree) a matter of perspective.

UPDATE: Arlo's flesh is not glabrous. I doubt it ever was.

The bastards that (allegedly) outed CIA agent Valerie Plame have been identified. They work for Dick Cheney.

And the country let out a collective, "DUH!"

Like you really care, but I learned something interesting today: Did you know Google has a built-in calculator?

As the expression goes, all politics are local. Or something like that. Fuck if I know.

One thing that I haven't talked about on this blog yet in depth is the Illinois race for Senator. With Peter Fitzgerald (looking distracted on his web site) leaving, there is a good chance for Illinois to replace him with a Democrat. And on March 16, when Illinoisians vote in our primary, not only will we be poking out a chad for Kerry or Edwards (or, I don't know, LaRouche), we'll also be choosing a candidate for Senator.

One problem -- no one seems to know who these people are.

I've only done a wee-wee bit of research on the Senatorial candidates -- I hope to do more in-depth study this weekend -- homework, side projects, and getting my old Epson printer to work under OS X allowing. With what little I know now about the candidates, my gut is with Barack Obama, though with that last name and it's obvious rhyme, he'd have to face some harsh Republican attempts at humor. Though, I think Maria Pappas' phonic similarity to "pap-smear" might be worse. Dan Hynes sounds like "hiney."

But look at me -- I'm judging these candidates based on how their names sound! Truth is, I have very little else to go on. I intend to correct that.

I found this great site following the Illinois Senate race. It has a lot of information, links to all of the candidates Web pages, and a discussion forum that I plan to avoid as I don't yet possess the research to participate in such a flame war. The site seems very comprehensive, a good starting place to start your own research.

As unpartisan as the site's coverage seems, I wanted to see who was running it, to see if it was Fair and Balanced™. The site is run by one Jeremiah Calvino. Some Googling revealed that has a link to Maria Pappas on his personal site, making him a Democrat. Just keep that in mind if you're visiting the site trying to figure out, between Jack Ryan, Jim Oberweis, and Andy McKenna, which corporate fat cat is for you.

(In all fairness, there's a fat cat Democrat running, too.)

There's only 40 days until the Illinois primary, so start looking at the candidates. I'd like to hear from you about this important race and share your thoughts here. If things looks hopeless for the top job by November, we still have the Senatorial race to make a difference on the Hill.

Today's development:

Tenet ... rejected suggestions that political pressure influenced the CIA's assessment of Iraq, saying "We will always call it as we see it."

"Unfortunately, you rarely hear a patient, careful or thoughtful discussion of intelligence these days," he said during a speech at Georgetown University. "But these times demand it, because the alternative -- politicized, haphazard evaluation without the benefit of time and facts -- may well result in an intelligence community that is damaged and a country that is more at risk."

Once again, and this time actually putting the country "at risk", I will attempt a "haphazard evaluation". The notion that an absence of overt political pressure constitutes an absence of any political pressure is flatly idiotic. Anyone with even a passing familiarity of the politics of coercion is aware that power laid bare is often power on the verge of collapse. In Washington, as in other circles where power is king, merely having possession of the purse strings, or a potentially ruinous morsel of political dirt, will usually suffice as sufficient leverage to tip the scales in your direction. As David Kay has rightfully acknowledged, the decision to go to war (while influenced by the available data) was a political decision. To assert, given the absence of U.N. inspectors and therefore the shortage of reliable data, that the intelligence assessments were not "politicized" is likewise idiotic; at least insofar as such an assertion extends to the White House.

As I have noted previously, the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002 presented a radically new perspective on the WMD issue in the absence (actually characterized a "decrease") of reliable intelligence. However, Bruce Blair has constructed a more compelling argument for the failure of intelligence than merely the existence of political pressure, which can never be dismissed as a motivating force behind data evaluation techniques – the policy of preemption itself cannot be supported by current intelligence-gathering capabilities. There are natural limits to what CIA (or any other agency) can do in this regard.

A list of criticisms of the current U.S. preemptive strategy could run for pages. Its defects range from its dubious legitimacy under international law, to the bad example it sets for other countries eager to justify a preemptive or preventive attack on their neighbors. Already we have seen Russia and France follow in the U.S. footsteps to declare similar doctrine for themselves, and the list of emulators will undoubtedly grow.

High on this list of liabilities is one particular difficulty that is the focus of this essay: the enormous burden that preemption places on intelligence – not only intelligence collection and analysis, but its interpretation by those at the top who, as noted earlier, inevitably filter the intelligence information they receive through their own presumptions. The buck stops at a level at which leaders must fuse incoming intelligence with their own prior beliefs. It is crucial to the shaping of U.S. security policy that this highly subjective process be understood well. Intuition suggests that human intellectual and psychological limitations undercut the feasibility and sensibility of a preemptive strategy.

I received this e-mail from the Howard Dean campaign this morning:

Dear Arlo,

The entire race has come down to this: we must win Wisconsin.

We must launch our new television advertisement on Monday in the major markets in Wisconsin. To do that, I need your help to raise $700,000 by Sunday. Please contribute $200 today so that we can reserve the air time:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/wisconsinad

We will get a boost this weekend in Washington, Michigan and Maine, but our true test will be the Wisconsin primary. A win there will carry us to the big states of March 2-and narrow the field to two candidates. Anything less will put us out of this race.

All that you have worked for these past months is on the line on a single day, in a single state. We have come so far to change our political process and restore our democracy-we can't stop now. Your $200 contribution will allow us to get out our message onto the airwaves, and win Wisconsin. Please contribute now:

http://www.deanforamerica.com/wisconsinad

Thank you,

Governor Howard Dean, M.D.

Yeah, they're in trouble.

Is it even possible for Dean to win my neighbor to the north, though? I can't find any tracking polls for Wisconsin (and if you find one, please tell me), but a win could give him a little boost going into California.

A statement like this e-mail, however, just adds to the defeat many Dean supporters must feel.

In other presidential politics speculation, interesting potential running mate buzz: Bill Richardson.

There are some people out there who are working up a pretty good head of steam about blogs, and about how stupid I am as a person who contributes to a blog. I guess that many folks feel that other folks expressing how they feel (or what they think) is annoying. Personally, I like being annoyed. I like getting all pissed off and feeling judgmental. Furthermore, I think that the people who bitch and moan about blogs also like feeling wronged and maligned and self-righteous. In fact, I'm grinning stupidly right this very moment as I think about how expressing myself just now, in that last sentence, may very well have made some jittery dork all blotchy in the face with rage. Hey, even if being opinionated isn't necessarily your thing, isn't it nevertheless true that everyone has something to share with the rest of humanity?

Even though a "civil union" is a decent compromise, it always did smack me of "separate but equal." Looks like the Massachusetts agrees.

When gay marriage does become fact (I think/hope it will happen in my lifetime), it will be interesting to see how divorce rates compare to straight marriages.

Pandagon has a great idea for John Kerry's campaign -- admit he's rich:

"'The difference between us is that I want every child to have the same opportunities we did. And that is why I am calling for a true Opportunity Society, not for some children, but for all children.'"

With Kerry leading Bush in polling combined with Bush having an approval rating considerably lower than Clinton's was the day he was impeached (third item), is that hope I'm feeling? Have I narrowed my field of vision on one candidate and failed to fully accept the big picture? Has my eye been on the wrong prize?

Well, no. But at least my sense of hope is trickling back in.

Very funny:

And Kerry is the worst part of it..he's the frontrunner now because he literally stole Howard's ideas. It reminds me of when Windows 95 came out and us mac users referred to as Mac 87. Not only was the idea for windows literally stolen, Windows is, to this day, an unstable platform with infinite flaws, huge security holes and an unfriendly user interface, and yet the majority of the people don't have any idea there's something better out there.

The Macintosh is derided as being out-of-step with the majority, incompatible with everything, and highly proprietary, assertions that are all false. An excellent analogy.

While ignoring another questions today about WMD, the resident burped out this little linguistic monstrosity:

What we don't know yet is what we thought and what the Iraqi Survey Group has found, and we want to look at that.

Here's yet another example of why life is easier if you're a blockhead. There is little that a mainstream editorialist can say in response to this, besides "He's a blockhead".

Good thing the blockhead is going to get his dumb ass fired.

According to NYT, both John Kerry and George Bush were in Skull and Bones at Yale. Make of that information what you will. <evilLaugh />

Is an independent commission on intelligence in Iraq to be trusted? Kicking Ass doesn't think so.

So, Arlo, how can you still be for Howard Dean? He can't win (true-ish), he's made too many mistakes (arguable), his personality is volatile (some would say "passionate"), he's made an ass of himself calling for the end to special interests and then hiring Roy Neal (it does look snarky), and his economic policies seem crazy (bullshit).

Here's why:

RUSSERT: You said the other day, talking about trade policy in Indiana, Iowa, that under your policy, there's some bad news, prices will go up at your local Wal-Mart. How popular is that going to be?

DEAN: Well, you know what they get in return? American jobs stop going overseas. Illegal immigration is reduced to a trickle, because people are going to make money in their own countries instead of having to come here to feed their families. And you get a much better world security, because you develop middle classes in developing countries. I think that's a pretty good tradeoff.

RUSSERT: People will pay higher prices at Wal-Mart for that?

DEAN: Yes. People will pay higher prices at Wal-Mart. Look, I'm just telling the truth here. I mean, I understand that everybody else promises you can have a tax cut, you can do this, you can do that. It's not true. It is not true. You cannot do everything.

I still say that John Kerry can't win, though we've established that my prediction skills suck ass. And we know that Howard Dean can't win. And though Bush's pproval rating has dropped below 50%, I don't think it's that important (neither does Pandagon).

So isn't it time we use this opportunity to send a message not only to Republicans but to Democrats that we're sick of being lied to? If you're going to lose anyway, put a Democrat on the stage with Bush who is going to tell the truth, be confrontational, and perhaps even make the president look like an ass? John Kerry can't do that, but Howard Dean can.

Of course, I'm an idealist with no firm grip on reality. Truth is, yesterday, I was glad to see New Englanders beat Southerners in one final contest. It may be the only time you see it this year.

The Dean interview linked above inspired be to tell the truth, and you may find this post depressing. It's only depressing if you give up hope, and I certainly haven't. Now that this is out of my system, positive, hopeful posts from now on. Which will probably be tomorrow night.

Say, did you see Janet Jackson's boob?