Department of Impeach The Bastards Already

Media Matters - Altercation: Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear ...:

"'They can't help themselves. They want to confess....' is the way Tom Engelhardt begins 'Bush's Pentagon Papers,' with the latest Bush administration torture-document revelations in mind. He reframes the torture debate, taking it beyond the 'shocked, shocked' response that goes with repeated revelations of secret administration memoranda that provide pretzeled legalisms justifying acts of torture and abuse."

Indeed, as has been often observed, there has never been an administration that was on the record admitting to so many obviously impeachable, certainly criminal and possibly treasonous acts. Doing these things seems to be not so much the point as getting away with it, with the full knowledge that everyone knows, and for whatever reason, dares not act. It's all about the power to abuse, and control those abused so they cannot or choose not to fight back.

He sums things up this way: "Of course, plumbing the psychology of a single individual while in office -- of a President or a Vice President -- is a nearly impossible task. Plumbing the psychology of an administration? Who can do it? And yet, sometimes officials may essentially do it for you. They may leave bureaucratic clues everywhere and then, as if seized by an impulsion, return again and again to what can only be termed the scene of the crime. Documents they just couldn't not write. Acts they just couldn't not take. Think of these as the Freudian slips of officials under pressure. Think of them as small, repeated confessions granted under the interrogation of reality and history, under the fearful pressure of the future, and granted in the best way possible: willingly, without opposition, and not under torture."

I'd be more blunt. To a bully, the exercise is pointless unless you can brag about it, unless you can savor the fear in your victim's eyes, unless you can revel in the impotent rage of the helpless and dis-empowered. And to the bully, the risk that the worm might just turn simply makes the occasions where the worm is just a worm all that sweeter.

In persisting in the naive belief that there must be something of substance behind Bush's actions beyond the ability to abuse, that there must be some overpowering reason that compels him to act as he does and some horrifying knowledge that justifies all of this is nonsense. Occam's razor and playground experience sums the man up to a point that no more elaborate analysis is needed. He's simply a bully, one given power irresponsibly by those who thought his failings made him controllable.

I take no joy in observing that they were only correct to an extent - and certainly not to the extent they would have reasonably expected, given the investments in capital and credibility Bush represents to all those who hold his debts. They assumed, of course, that he'd feel some sense of obligation, of duty. But the man is clearly incapable of associating cause and effect or of accepting any sort of responsibility, even obvious duties clearly visible to all. If he cannot and will not accept such responsibilities which, like a respectful attendance to someone like Cindy Sheehan, when it would have cost him nothing at all, what gives anyone the reason to presume that he'd accept responsibility when it might involve a check on his actions or a limit on his desires?

Nothing Bush has done has achieved anything that would have been useful even if it had worked as his excuses stated. No matter how noble or venial the ambitions of those supporting him, all evidence suggests that the only return they get is just enough to fully compromise them, at which point the exploitation and degradation begins.

Every single choice he has made has had the effect of some form of humiliation, some loss of dignity, some loss of rights, some trespass - and with nothing to show for it other than the humiliation, the indignity, the trespass itself. It's not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that he's a bully, no different than any other bully, with no great plan and no overriding principle other than enjoying the fruits of his daily trespasses.

He shows no discrimination between enemy and ally, nor is any ideological position explored in principle other than as a means to an end of getting people to do things to other people that ordinary decency would preclude. He has betrayed even his theocon and neocon allies, exploiting their hopes ruthlessly, knowing that they, least of all, were in no position to complain of the results of their particular devil's bargains.

I don't happen to believe in a literal Antichrist - but in the sense that he seems compelled to ask "What Would Jesus Do" so that he can do the complete opposite, while piously citing his Christian Values as the justification for outraging all of them, I cannot help but think that he's as close to a literal Antichrist as I ever wish to see.

But he's certainly not of the Antiheroic stature of Faustian Satanic archetypes, so perhaps it confuses folks who expect a little romantic nobility in their evil. Well, you won't get that from George.

He's a petty, spiteful, cruel and astonishingly banal excretion of evil, the sort that revels in doing bad things and getting away with it, for no greater reason than just that. His entire biography demonstrates it, to the extent that one begins to strongly suspect that all of his "failures" were his direct intent - he'd rather fail, if failure screws over those who relied on him. It's hard to find anyone - other than Dick Cheney - who's not paid a price for granting him favor greater than the favor was ever worth. And the only reason for that is that Dick is twice as vile and understands that Bush is exactly what he is, and understanding that, can rule him completely. It's only those who expect better of him that are disappointed, and my contempt for him is minimal compared to that I extend to those who permit him to continue as he does, knowing full well what a non-biodegradable turd he is.

Of course, his greatest glee must come from watching the the toll on those closest to him, the gradual realization that his promises will never come true, their sacrifices never repaid and their hopes doomed - and that their only hope now is to somehow work around him to escape prosecution and disgrace. That they are only a little better than him, that they still have some vestigial principles to compromise is what leaves them open to such men, for his greatest joy is to crush the last vestige of innocence, cause others to betray their own good opinion of themselves, to lead them to commit atrocities and asininities in his name.

You need no more profound explanation, for it serves very well to predict his actions and explain those actions already committed. You first met this creep on the playground in kindergarten. At some point, most of you realized the only way to reason with such a creature was to clearly communicate to them that you would not give in, you would not go along, and you would rather take your chances in a fight than continue to be abused.

A fair fight, or even a lopsided fight in which he might be personally scuffed is the last thing a bully will ever do. When they understand that you don't much care what happens to you, so long as you have the satisfaction of sinking your teeth in their throat, they suddenly develop other interests.

In my personal experience, that can be true even at four to one odds.

Are you listening, Harry and Nancy? Would it help to know that I don't much care at this point what his wiretaps and files might reveal, even if I thought they were likely to be true? What acts could you have committed in secret more damnable than what you permit in public, wringing your hands in pious impotence?

Redeem yourselves.

Your public acceptance of repeated political sodomy cannot be better in any sense than the alternate. If it's the end of your political career, is that such a bad thing? I certainly would never suffer such a fate as the price for holding on to the illusion of influence - and truly, that's all that's left either of you; a threadbare illusion that fools nobody.

He's not your president. He's not MY president. There are obligations due us from him in accordance with the oath of office, oaths he has publicly bragged he's violated. His duty is to "uphold and defend the constitution." He has not. He's on record on that. He's got Alito's opinions on record as to how he might get away with doing that. It's not even a matter of debate, so the other open question - as to whether his election was ever legitimate - is moot.

Engelhardt concludes:

The urge of any criminal regime -- to ditch, burn, or destroy incriminating documents, or erase emails -- has, in a sense, already been obviated. So much of the Bush/Cheney "record" is on the record. As Karen J. Greenberg wrote, back in December 2006, "What more could a prosecutor want than a trail of implicit confessions, consistent with one another, increasingly brazen over time, and leading right into the Oval Office?"

Looking back on these last years, it turns out that the President, Vice President, their aides, and the other top officials of this administration were always in the confessional booth. There's no exit now.

Justice demands recompense, the blood of the slain cries out for justice, and in her brutal way, Providence will assure it, if we do not take steps ourselves. One way or another, payment will be had, and justice will come out of this in the end.

However, if you think it would be good for this nation to survive in recognizable form with Constitution, borders and dignity intact, bringing these criminals to dock would be a fine start.

tag: Tom Engelhardt, Bush's Pentagon Papers, Media Matters, Truth, Miserable Failure, Bully, George W. Bush

In the Valley of Elah

I just sent this off to the publicity people for a new film, opening in theaters now, as they say.

I don't usually do film reviews on graphictruth.com, and I am not wanting to be on your list of "usual suspects," though I'm interested in UNusual films.

The hook for me was that my state senator and majority leader, Harry Reid, handed off a copy to John Kerry - who watched it and sent out a notice to his entire mailing list.

Graphictruth.com is pretty much about what it sounds like, and it sounds like this is a very graphic truth indeed.

For me, the fact that the ball started rolling on this in 2003 is to me the most interesting part of this story. It takes that long for the consequences of some acts to materialize, sometimes even longer.

This seems to be all about unintended, unimagined and unimaginable consequences.

I really, really do not want to see this film. I expect it will give me nightmares.

Can you please send me a review copy?

Regards;

Bob King
Graphictruth.com

I can count the number of times I've done something like this on my thumbs. And I'm doing it knowing that it is going to have a certain message, it is going to portray a certain reality that will be unpalatable to those who think that the War in Iraq and the War on Terror are inseparable.But in fact, when you go to war - every time, and for whatever reason, you must pay the Butcher's Bill - and the horrifying truth is that each and every soldier who faces combat is affected forever. This paragraph comes from John Kerry's letter.

The former top operating officer at the Pentagon, a Marine Lieutenant General, once said of Iraq that "the commitment of our forces to this fight was done with a casualness and swagger that are the special province of those who have never had to execute these missions --or bury the results."

I've never seriously considered myself to be anti-war. It strikes me rather like being anti-hurricane.

It really doesn't matter to the hurricane whether you are philosophically opposed to it's existence or not. One can prepare for it, one can avoid being in it or choose to endure it, one must respond to it intelligently and clean up the mess so that life can return to normal. These are common sense observations, and wars come upon us for many reasons, many of which are no more under our control than the weather.

I am pro-peace - and to me, the best way to ensure peace and the best way to return to a state of peace subsequent to war is to have a very efficient and powerful response to aggression, and as realistic an appreciation as possible as to the costs of war upon the people asked to fight it and those who must stay at home. Above all, don't stupidly create conditions that may provoke a war.

There is a huge, indefinable, but real price that must be paid over the generations for every act of war, for ever war that starts due to foolishness, misadventure, miscalculation, aggression, need, greed, the hunger for power or the desire for "living room."

Thousands of years ago, Sun Tsu considered all these things in his "Art of War," a book George W. Bush has clearly never read, or at least comprehended. Source: Shonshi.com; Links indicated with question marks lead to related discussion threads:

If one gains victory in battle and is successful in attacks, but does not exploit those achievements, it is disastrous.

This is called waste and delay. ?

Therefore, I say the wise general thinks about it, and the good general executes it. ?

If it is not advantageous, do not move;

if there is no gain, do not use troops;

if there is no danger, do not do battle. ?

The ruler may not move his army out of anger; the general may not do battle out of wrath. ?
If it is advantageous, move;

if it is not advantageous, stop. ?

Those angry will be happy again, and those wrathful will be cheerful again, but a destroyed nation cannot exist again, the dead cannot be brought back to life. ?

Therefore, the enlightened ruler is prudent, the good general is cautious.

This is the Way of securing the nation, and preserving the army. ?

And I could not resist adding this further citation from the very first page:

Before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will win, because many calculations were made;

before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will not win, because few calculations were made; ?

Many calculations, victory, few calculations, no victory, then how much less so when no calculations?

By means of these, I can observe them, beholding victory or defeat! ?

It seems that in this case, foresight was 20/20.

Technorati : 2003, 2008, George W. Bush, Harry Reid, In the Valley of Elah, Iran, Iraq War, John Kerry, Sun Tsu, The Art of War, anti-war, peace, strategy

The incumbant's choice: Plomo e Plata?

In Mexico, when criminal elements wish to influence a public official, they offer them a choice; "Plomo e Plata;" "Lead or Silver." In other words, take the nice bribe or we shoot you.

I'm probably not the first to observe the probability that the highest priority for warrentless wiretapping, data mining, "sneak and peek" warrents and presumed other secret surveillance efforts have been aimed at compromising public officials of all parties who might have sudden attacks of conscience in the face of the administration's march toward the establishment of a totalitarian state.

This Can't Be Happening!: "The Democrats in this Congress are a bunch of spineless cowards and willing enablers, and they now bear the chief responsibility for establishing the elements of an American police state.

For that is clearly where this nation is headed.

There was no need to give the president new warrantless surveillance powers. Would be terrorists are already fully aware of the government's spying capabilities and certainly are being cautious in their use of phones and email to communicate. Moreover, the secret FISA court has demonstrated that it is most accommodating of spying requests, having only rejected one such request from the President and National Security Agency in the past two years. It is obvious then that what the president is seeking is expanded power to spy on Americans. And incredibly, despite his 27-percent support rating in the polls, and despite widespread public fears of this kind of government snooping, he is getting it.

Sen. Feingold has been one of the staunchest defenders of the Constitution, voting against the USA Patriot Act and against the invasion of Iraq, but he is wrong to imply that before Friday's betrayal of that document, the Senate was acting as an independent body. Both the Senate and the House ceased playing their constitutional role and became rubber stamps a long time ago."

There's no telling what interesting tid-bits might turn up in the closets of long-time legislators, but the net effect seems to be a state of sheer terror at the idea of asserting their plain constitutional duty. And frankly, this pansy-assed complacency doesn't make a heck of a lot of political sense, either. So i'm starting to presume, frankly, that key members of Congress have been confronted with the possibility of what might occur to them if they don't play ball. Consequences such as what happened to Rep. Jackson spring to mind. But the "financial death penalty" is a nice lever too - and then there's always direct threats of violence against person or family.

Most probably, simple blackmail would be enough to get things to go the President's way on critical issues such as this. Let them have their meaningless symbolic gestures; so long as they accomplish nothing substantial, such as, say, bills of impeachment or cutting off funding for the war.

There are two Democrats in particular that need to be held accountable; both Nancy Pelosi and Nevada's Harry Reid must be removed from office by the voters. Between them, they have made a satisfactory peaceful resolution of our current constitutional crisis that much more difficult. I, personally, have run out of patience with Sen. Reid and will be voting for any non-republican warm body other than him in 2008.

Presuming we have elections in 2008, a question that becomes more and more open with each passing day.

Blackmail, election 2008, corruption, bush administration, Congressional Democrats, rubber stamp, plomo e plata, lead or silver.

Ok, I've just written a paid post about virtual phone cards, and in order to convince me and my readers, they gave me access to some lovely data. Pingo is a service of a major long distance broker - which means they move VAST amounts of data.

So let's do a little data-mining.

First, the current rate quoted for domestic US long distance is 1.8 cents/minute.

Let's look at rates from the US to Mexico:

Mexico 9.0￠
Mexico - Chihuahua 4.0￠
Mexico - Guadalajara 2.8￠
Mexico - Mexico City 3.0￠
Mexico - Mobile 27.9￠
Mexico - Monterrey 3.0￠
Mexico - Puebla 3.0￠
Mexico - Tlaxcala 5.0￠

Clearly there is enough voice and data traffic via phone between the US and Mexico to justify these rates - rates that for Mexico City, Monterrey, Puebla and Guadalajara are roughly a penny more than US domestic long distance rates quoted by Pingo.

That's an interesting factoid, don't you think?

Let's look at Canada.

1.8 cents/minute, the same as the domestic rate. (with the exception of Alaska and Hawaii.) Hm.

So, from a telecommunications standpoint, Canada and the US are the same market. That I knew already, but it's a surprise to me that so much of Mexico is too. And it cannot be all due to "illegals" calling home. Rates like this are due to big blocks of business traffic being brokered back and forth.

But just to make sure, let's see what a South American would have to cough up to call home from the US.

Bolivia 7.8￠
Bolivia - Cochabamba 5.8￠
Bolivia - La Paz 5.8￠
Bolivia - Mobile 11.8￠

Still not bad, but much more in line with what I would have expected for a call across the equator.

Now, I could mine this rate chart all day for interesting correlations. For instance, I would have expected much lower rates for calling China, considering our enormous trade deficit. I wonder if this reflects infrastructure issues, regulation, or a preference for doing business via web and through brokers. I'd have to know more to be sure, but it's information sources like this that provide a really accurate picture of the patterns of trade and globalization. There's all kinds of sources for "impartial" information about the perils and virtues of Globalization. Me, I prefer the raw data generated by people who have a direct interest keeping that data "clean." It may not tell you what is going on politically, and certainly it will bear no resemblance to what any politician or activist will tell you.

But that's a good thing.

In the case of North America, this gives us a graphic and unavoidable truth - there already IS a North American Union. The powers that be just want to tax it, regulate it, and otherwise impede what is obviously a large and largely unregulated market that primarily benefits those involved in it.

It's anarchic; it's developed as much in spite of government as because of it, and while that has been a fact with the deeply entwined economies of the US and Canada for years and years, a similar commingling with brown folks alarms xenophopbes.

Well, I'm afraid it's a little late. Due to some rather dumb immigration and enforcement policy, it's been easier for Mexican illegals to establish households here than to simply cross the border for seasonal work. This means, of course, there's no reason to concentrate on seasonal work - and now far more than the lettuce crop depends on Mexican workers, documented and otherwise.

You know, sometimes policies are so stupid, so obviouly likely to produce the opposite of the advertised intent, you gotta wonder which is more likely - stupidity or deception. And seeing as I believe this policy change occurred under Bush.

Well, this an many other such data-points tells me that our cultures and economies are entwined to the point where we should be re-considering the whole concept of the "illegality" of economic migration, and more importantly, ask the obvious question of who it benefits when the flow of labor this way and money that way is choked off.

From the rumbles and rumors I get, it seems to me that economic migration is putting more pressure on the Mexican government than it is on ours - and that the price of educating and providing such small services as our government offers can and should be written off as the best foreign aid package ever. It's a serious threat to a corrupt elite that is very comfortable with maintaining a feudal system that benefits nobody but those in charge.

The United States does not give foreign aid without strings, and there have never been such potentially lucrative strings as these. For one thing, by entwining the economic destiny of the entire stretch of Mexico from Tijuana to the Gulf with our own, we have accidentally created what amounts to a buffer state that is not any more loyal to Mexico City than it is to Washington - but more dependent on the economy of the US Southwest than it is on the rest of Mexico.

And any circumstances that allows you to educate the children of potential competitors and enemies - we should be turning HANDSPRINGS, folks!

This gives us a potential headlock on the whole intellectual and economic future of an entire nation with a troubled history of outright mismanagement and lots of lovely economic opportunity going to seed. It's your free market capitalist's wet dream.

Alas, real free maket capitalism is about as likely to be permitted to exist as actual communism. Neither lend themselves to huge concentrations of wealth or power, so they have to be "fixed." Usually in the name of those who would otherwise actually benefit from either system run honestly.

Now, prepare yourself for a complete change of topic, although it also derives from prepaid phone cards. Randi Rhodes was talking about Alberto Gonzales and his repeated perjuries regarding the illegal and unconstitutional domestic surveillance program.

It's depressing to have to observe this, but the explosion in pre-paid (and therefore untraceable) cel phones and pre-paid (and therefore, untraceable) phone cards is probably NOT due to an explosion of illegal activity, but rather an entirely legitimate concern that our government is far too interested in our business.

Randi Rhodes just speculated aloud again that the reluctance to impeach Bush is directly due to proceeds from illegal domestic surveillance. Or in other words, this has always been a completely political administration with policies that are always driven by political outcomes and the political outcome of this illegal wiretapping was Watergate all over again, at the wholesale level.

Ever wonder why there has been such complete party loyalty among republicans? That is not all that usual - there are lots of different sorts of Republicans in both House and Senate? So why haven't they voted as you'd expect? Hm.

Well, if you pay cash, pre-paid long distance, cel phones and internet solutions make it impossible to connect a person with a credit card or bank account. And these days, seeing the advantage of that is not paranoid, it's prudent.

This president has just given himself the power to confiscate the assets of anyone who he deems to be giving "aid and comfort" to "the enemy." The statute is so broad that it could be used to take Ron Paul's assets for saying that 9/11 was at least in part a response to years of US meddling in the middle east. It could be used to seize Hillary Clinton's assets and political war chest in order to prevent her from potentially "interfering with the rebuilding of Iraq" by being, you know, elected.

Seriously, as written, that could occur. And it might well occur to anyone less visible than Ron Paul or Hillary Clinton.

At this point, it's pretty obvious that the government is trying, at least, to filter through every conversation, every internet post, every email to find useful intelligence.- and now they are apparently opening snail mail with far fewer safeguards than previously existed.

Yet, Al Queda flourishes, Bin Ladin is free and many of our ports and I believe ALL of our passenger rail terminals are operated by Middle Eastern companies.

So it would seem to me that winning the "war on terror" is no the priority of this program. Unless the source of "terror" is the terror of Republicans being placed at risk of being held accountable, investigated, audited and brought before war-crimes tribunals.

So, if you are likely to say such things on the phone and have the desire to be discreet about it for some reason regarding, say, personal and financial liberty, you might start considering your own personal information security plan. You don't need an urge to be getting away with something to enjoy privacy of communications - you just need to be concerned about the likelihood of someone deciding that something you are doing disturbs them.

And without the right to habius corpus, they won't even have to admit they disappeared you.

Paranoid ranting? Alas, not for the last six months. As Randi suggested, it's time to consider how you look in a tin foil hat, because if they can't read your thoughts, it ain't because there isn't a program trying to achieve just that.

As for Congress, whatever you desire, however you would prefer to handle this, you also are facing a crisis point. It's time to tell George to "Publish and be damned to you, Sir!"

When the president of the united states is mad enough to arrogate to himself powers not even King George would have dared presume, he's mad enough to do anything. It's past time worrying about your political future - it's time to concentrate on personal survival. If Bush succeeds in consolidating power as he is clearly doing, you won't have either a political future, or any future outside of barbed wire.

Initiate impeachment procedures immediately and you will have the support of the American People. There's no better time to do it, because whatever indiscretions suddenly appear, the timing of their appearance will be damning. So cowboy up, put on your BIG girl panties and cope. You have the great fortune of having lived in interesting times.


tag: Phone Cards, Privacy, illegal wiretaps, alberto gonzolez, randi rhodes,

BREAKING: Our Harry to Republicans: Stand Up or Shut Up.

UPDATE! Harry is taking it to the mattresses!

Apparently Harry is out of patience with Republican procedural obstructionism! Yay, and it's about damn time, says almost everyone referring to the Think Progress alert.

Think Progress » BREAKING: Reid To Force All-Night Filibuster On Iraq Withdrawal: "Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that in response to conservative obstructionism, he plans to force war supporters to physically remain in the Senate and filibuster Iraq withdrawal legislation.

Reid accused conservatives of “protecting the President rather than protecting our troops” by “denying us an up or down vote on the most important issue our country faces.” He said that if a vote on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation is not allowed today or tomorrow, he will keep the Senate in session “straight through the night on Tuesday” and force a filibuster."

OpenLeft, Firedoglake and others have also called for Congress to call the conservatives’ bluff and force them to filibuster the Levin-Reed Iraq bill.



Here's Reid's reasoning, which I support, for what it's worth.

So the record here is clear. The President’s decision to stubbornly cling to the current course leaves this body no choice but to enact binding language.

He has failed to lead us out of Iraq. We are ready to show him the way.

M. President, my worst fears on this bill have been realized. We have just seen the Republican leadership again resort to technical maneuver to block progress on this crucial amendment.

It would be one thing for Republicans to vote against this bill. If they honestly believe that “stay the course” is the right strategy — they have the right to vote “no.”

But now, Republicans are using a filibuster to block us from even voting on an amendment that could bring the war to a responsible end.

They are protecting the President rather than protecting our troops.

They are denying us an up or down — yes or no — vote on the most important issue our country faces.

I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down.

If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday.

The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.

Given the Republican leadership’s decision to block the amendment, we have no choice but to do everything we can in the coming days to highlight Republican obstruction.

We do this in hopes of ultimately getting a simple up or down vote on this and other important amendments that could change the direction of the war.

All Senators will be welcome to speak their mind. Those of us who are ready to end the war will make our case to the American people. Those who support the status quo are welcome to equal floor time to make their case.

Let the American people hear the arguments. Let them see their elected representatives engaging in a full, open and honest debate.

Let them hear why Republicans are obstructing us on this amendment.

Whenever Republicans are ready to allow a vote on this most crucial legislation, we stand ready to deliver the new course that has been so long in coming.

So, it's already tomorrow and if everything is going well, individual Republicans will have to be on record as "Supporting the President instead of supporting the troops." Sooner or later, one or more will break and , as detailed below, cloture will be invoked and a vote will follow, as Bob Geiger explains below.

The Reed-Levin amendment to the Department of Defense (DoD) Authorization Bill requires George W. Bush to "commence the reduction of the number of United States forces in Iraq not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act" and mandates a withdrawal of most combat forces by April 30, 2008.

The legislation, S.AMDT.2087, has bipartisan support and is cosponsored by Gordon Smith (R-OR), Chuck Hagel (R-NE) and Olympia Snowe (R-ME).

In making this move (based on my understanding of Senate rules), Reid is invoking the provisions of Rule 22 (Precedence of Motions) of the Standing Rules of the Senate, which provides, at the Majority Leader's discretion, up to 30 hours of debate if a filibuster is initiated -- as the Republicans will most certainly do, knowing that Reed-Levin may very well have the 51 votes needed for passage.

Sixty votes are needed to achieve cloture (end debate) and move legislation to a full, deciding vote.

Reid will be using the provision of Rule 22 that allows for up to 30 hours of continuous debate once it's made clear -- in this case, by Republicans trying to avoid an up-or-down vote on Reed-Levin -- that there is a desire to continue debating the issue.

In other words, the Majority Leader is saying "You want to debate? We'll stay all night and debate."

Read Reid’s full speech HERE.

202-225-4965 = Pelosi’s office
202-224-3542 = Reid in D.C.
702-388-5020 = Reid in Nevada

Attention,Gutless Democrats - Time to grow a spine.

Some reluctant MSM truth-telling....

The decision by the Democratic majority to strip the measure of a timetable for troop withdrawal has raised the prospect that it could be approved mainly by Republicans with scattered Democrat support. The idea that many Democrats would be left on the losing side in a consequential vote has exposed a sharp divide within the party, drawn scorn from antiwar groups, confused the public and frustrated the party rank and file.

...

Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.

...

But scores of other Democrats, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, say they have no intention of voting for the more than $100 billion sought by the White House for combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan because Mr. Bush refused to accede to timelines, readiness standards and other conditions. They have said repeatedly since taking control in January that they will not turn over more money for the war without some movement toward a withdrawal.

The "price" for this bill seems to be Republican support for and a Presidential agreement to $17 billion in new domestic spending and a minimum-wage increase.

Whatever I think of these trade-offs matters little compared to what appears to be a widespread revulsion toward the idea of personal benefit at the expense of leaving our boys and girls in the field. I can only hope that my own disgust for those who's core principles are clearly negotiable is equally widespread. Nor am I willing to let this situation become the status quo ante, in the touching belief that a dictitorial executive will somehow be more benign in Democratic hands.

This comment from a "clipper" is indicative of the growing backlash against a Congress that an increasing majority see as spineless; far too concerned with the minutia of politics and partisan goals and far too willing to "horse-trade" on matters of principle.

Clipmarks - Progress in iraq Clipmarks: "AineMacDermot says:
'Democrats said they did not relish the prospect of leaving Washington for a Memorial Day break — the second recess since the financing fight began — and leaving themselves vulnerable to White House attacks that they were again on vacation while the troops were wanting. That criticism seemed more politically threatening to them than the anger Democrats knew they would draw from the left by bowing to Mr. Bush.'

Scared of being called names by a man who lacks ethics? They fear Bush more than they fear losing support from the people who put them into office. Tsk, tsk... who do you represent?"

Ultimately I must go with the facts on the ground. This is an illegal and starkly immoral war, it is being waged for profit - and not even for the profit of the American people in general, but for a tiny fraction of the population who believe they have the right to manipulate the population to their own advantage. Furthermore, it is being waged as a means to the end of stripping the American people - and their Congressional Representatives - of their Constitutional rights, authorities and duties.

This is no time to be playing pattycake. It's not time for business as usual. It's time to "go to the mattresses" and initiate procedures to impeach both the Vice President and the Sock-Puppet in Chief. And those of you up for re-election in 2008 had best take this mandate very damned seriously, because an unwillingness to support the obvious, Constitutional solution means you have no more respect for that sacred document than any neocon bushista.

Failing to see the forest fire for the trees.

WASHINGTON (AP) - Nevada Sens. Harry Reid and John Ensign complained Wednesday that money they've obtained for use in the Tahoe Basin is being held up by bureaucratic red tape. If more of it had been spent on brush clearing and fuel reduction, some of the devastation of last month's Tahoe fire could have been prevented, they said.

"We worked hard to get this money. ... we expected the money to be spent," Reid, D-Nev., told reporters after the senators met with U.S. Forest Service Chief Gail Kimbell in Majority Leader Reid's office.

It turns out that rules and regulations for lake preservation and habitat management got in the way of habitat management and lake preservation.

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency that administers some of the restrictions has come in for angry criticism after a blaze destroyed 254 homes and other buildings across about 5 square miles and displaced about 3,500 people late last month. Some residents say the agency overstepped its mission of protecting the lake by imposing unwieldy rules on homeowners including even limiting where residents can rake pine needles.

Now, of course that seems absurd, but there probably are reasons that seem good to those who are trying to micromanage an ecology and human behavior within it. But then, that's the problem - the attempt to micromanage an ecology (or indeed, any somewhat chaotic system) leads to absurdity at best.

Certainly fire is a large part of the natural ecology around here. That doesn't mean we have any good reason to let fire burn down our habitats! No ethos that requires the sacrifice of the ethical will survive long enough to benefit much of anything, which is why all persistent ethical systems act to the benefit of those practicing it first.

And let's not forget that a forest fire ain't exactly great for riparian habitat. All that erosion leads to choked and polluted streams, something the micromanagement was intended to prevent!

So this is not a post about "bureaucratic mismanagement," per se. In fact, it's difficult to imagine how one could manage the habitat and preserve Lake Tahoe without some sort of bureau, and that's clearly a matter of common concern and interest to everyone living there.

Nope, my criticism focuses on the plain silly idea that you can create rules (or even computer programs) that can substitute for expert human judgment. What's needed here is an expert system that works to tell people the right thing to do in various situations rather than forbidding "bad" behavior on a microscopic level, without regard to secondary and tertiary effects.

What I would suggest would be to take a minuscule amount of those federal dollars to set up a powerful Wiki and pool the knowledge of experts and residents of the Tahoe basin and use it as a tool to hammer out a new management scheme. It's a far more powerful approach than public meetings and seminars, and a far more efficient way to preserve and present the information.

In other words, we need to start exploring Management 2.0.

A Belated Sense of Duty

It's ironic that it takes this sort of provocation to issue a "Contempt of Congress" citation. That contempt has been made manifest with every stonewall, every executive order, every dismissive remark by our Misleader.

Perhaps it's come to the point that Congress realizes that so many of them HAVE been blackmailed and pressured (I speculate, of course) via illegal means that people will tend to overlook the smaller sins due to outrage at the greater.

It will be interesting to see what happens if the Supremes stonewall this. Perhaps impeachment for the last two appointments? Or perhaps Alitio will convert to Constitutionalism, after re-reading the Federalist papers and checking the wind.

The gravity of this issue is impossible to overestimate. Deliberately provoking a Constitutional crisis in the name of upholding the principle of the "Unitary Executive" with an undercurrent of "I have the guns and you don't" is a good way to provoke Civil War.

It will be interesting to see if Bush tries to have Congress intimidated with tanks and artillery. Interesting in the Chinese sense. And it will be interesting to see if Rumsfield and his successor have managed to "restrutcture" the military to the degree that it will willingly fire on American Citizens.

clipped from www.thenation.com

No one was all that surprised when the Bush administration announced Thursday that it would not cooperate with congressional demands for documents and testimony

The best way to enforce the rule of law is by issuing a Contempt of Congress citation

The issuance of a Contempt of Congress citation would provoke the sort of Constitutional showdown that it now appears will be required if this administration is to be held to account for its abuses of power. In such a showdown between the legislative and executive branches, the third branch of the federal government, the judiciary, would be asked to decide whether the White House has a right to assert, as White House counsel Fred Fielding did in a letter telling the committee chairs that their demands would not be met.

"Increasingly," says Leahy, "the president and vice president feel they are above the law -- in America no one is above law."

tag: Contempt of Congress. Unitary Executive, Separation of Powers, George Bush, Dick Cheney

Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way!

Dave Lindorff writes in The Wheels are Coming Off the Machine Friday, June 22, 2007

The wheels are coming off the Democratic machine, with angry voters starting to lose patience with the Party's chronic inability to act decisively on any of the key issues of public concern.

In a Reuters dispatch on June 18, Democratic leaders in Congress concede that voters are angry with them for not doing enough to end the Iraq War. They might have added that voters are also angry at them for not impeaching the president or even for moving on Rep. Dennis Kucinich's bill to impeach Vice President Dick Cheney (H Res. 333).

"I understand their disappointment. We raised the bar too high," bleats Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid (D-NV).

Lindorff presents an elegant, passionate rebuttal to the excuses presented for their spineless refusal to obey the people's mandate. While you should read it yourself, the sum of it is simple and our leadership deserves no more polite response than this:

BULLSHIT!

Dear Harry and Nancy: "Lead, follow or get the hell out of the way." Those are your only viable political alternatives.

Not Safe for Working Republicans

Susie Bright is one of my reality checks. You see, people who have come to a level of comfort with sex, sexuality and talking about sex are, in my experience, not all that easily bothered by ephemeral trivia or taken in with obvious sublimations and substitutes for the real thing - in any sense.

Susie's take on figuring out why putting Democrats into the majority failed to stop the war is brutally pragmatic. "Follow the money."

The war profiteers cannot be altruistic or public-spirited. They can't be fulfilled. It's like asking a scorpion to give you a free ride. They can't be talked into a wind-down, a slowdown, or letting up on the gas. Their existence as a permanent arms economy can only survive by expansion.

Until we take away their toys, they will break them; they will break us. We have to stop paying for them, voting for them, working for them. It's a vision thing, as King George might say— to stop seeing that we share the slightest, tiniest, mutual interest.

Remember, it was Eisenhower who warned us of the dangers of the "military-industrial compelx." Not some faint-hearted draft-card-burning pansy-ass "liberal."

No fucking freedom under Democratic rule, either.

Somehow, I expected a different outcome. But I suppose I failed to be cynical enough. However, rather than having a tantrum about the betrayal of principles - provoking loud horselaughs from across the political spectrum and the population in general, let me point ot that "abstinence only education" is the most stupid sort of public policy imaginable, and far from the only example of this particular sort of stupidity.

It may well be argued that abstinence is something people "ought" to do. However, that is a judgment call and a moralistic opinion - which varies widely from place to place and culture to culture. Government policy should address what people actually DO do, and address the issues arising from that, while providing information relevant to managing "that" in the best way possible.

But from personal debt management to sex education to social policy - we are fraught with "ought" based policy. And this is a very expensive way to avoid dealing with the real issues.

Beyond Shame: Democrats Sell Out Youth | RHRealityCheck.org

Today, the House Democrats will waltz into the mark-up of the Labor HHS Subcommittee and proudly present a bill that puts their stamp of approval on domestic abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—an ideological boondoggle that threatens the health and well-being of America's youth.

The most appalling aspect of this sell-out is that that the Democrats will not only fully fund the worst of the failed abstinence-only-until-marriage programs—they'll give them a $27 million increase—the first in three years!

Shame on Congressman David Obey for brokering this "deal;" shame on Congresswoman Nita Lowey for agreeing to it; and shame on those other Democrats on the Appropriations Committee who have already promised not to offer any amendment that would cut funding for abstinence-only programs and thus "upset" the deal.

I'm sorry, but 27 million dollars to convince people of that which is intuitively obvious to the casual observer; that if you don't have sex you will avoid all the risks associated with sex? Is this the price we pay to spare our representatives the embarrassment and inevitable hostility resulting from actually discussing Reproductive Health policy? Are they afraid it will show up on You Tube; that people will be gathered around C-Span with popcorn, doing shots when the word "condom" is mentioned?

I am so embarrassed! WHAT were Harry and Nancy THINKING?

Well, for those of you that do not know where to get decent sexual education - I always refer people to ScarletTeen, a resource put together by adult industry professionals. If you want to avoid risks and practice safer sex, I always say go to the professionals. I mean, who do you trust on the issue of home repairs - Bob Villa, or some guy with a leaky roof and a cracked foundation? You see, here's the sort of conclusion you come to if you actually do some fact-related thinking.

...[T]ied up into all of this is also access to reliable, accurate and unbiased information about birth control, reproduction and sexuality as a whole. That's not just a women's issue, by any means, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that while lack of that information does everyone harm, men and women alike, it ultimately harms women the most. Everyone is harmed by sexual shame, by a lack of understanding of their own bodies and health -- and that of sexual partners -- by purposeful misinformation about sexuality and sexual and reproductive health. NOT everyone will become pregnant because of it, get cervical cancer because of it, wind up in rape or coercion scenarios because they don't know the warning signs or are told to disregard them, or be unable to make a sound reproductive choice when pregnancy occurs that is best for them. (And that's not even touching on issues of intercourse or other sex under obligation, sound counsel, prevention and address of sexual abuse, understanding of how women's sexuality even works, the whole bag.) These things will happen to women, who even just by sheer biology, whether we're talking about pregnancy or cervical cells, bear the greatest burdens when it comes to sex and the opposite sex.

In a culture/community/relationship or under a system which does not support an equality of full reproductive autonomy and agency, it is a given that sexuality and reproductive information will follow suit, and either protest that full autonomy or undermine it, and often quite intentionally.

Tag: reproductive choice, sex education, sexuality, public policy, abstinence-only education, personal responsiblity

PSA: After Imus: What you can do

Press Release from freepress.net

The controversy over Don Imus' racist remarks goes far beyond one bigoted commentator. But getting rid of Imus won't fix the media problem.

Most of our TV and radio stations are owned by giant corporate conglomerates. They don't represent the views of most Americans -- and they make huge profits off the public airwaves.

What we need are more diverse, independent and local media owners. Yet right now less than 10% of TV and radio stations are owned by people of color or women.

But instead of addressing this national disgrace, the Federal Communications Commission is actually trying to let the largest companies buy up even more stations!

Tell the FCC: We Need More Diversity in the Media

What Imus said is just the tip of the iceberg. Scores of other TV and radio hosts regularly make racist and sexist comments. The best way to stop this race to the bottom is to change who's sitting at the top -- and making the decisions about who's behind the mic.

Today, according to one industry study, only 2.5% of radio stations have a person of color in the role of general manager, and only 4.4% have a racial or ethnic minority in the role of news director. The percentage of women in these jobs isn't much higher. No wonder shock jocks like Imus have been able to keep their jobs for so long.

Now is our chance to make a change. In 2003, we stopped the FCC from allowing more media concentration, when more than 3 million people took action to stop Big Media.

Tell Your Friends To Act

This time, we must not only stop further consolidation -- we must demand media ownership that reflects the diversity that makes our nation great.

Onward,

Robert McChesney
President
Free Press
www.freepress.net

Attn: Harry Reid. Fair elections with genuine debate are much easier when there is fair and equal media coverage. Just ask Jack Carter.

I should add that this is an important issue for real conservatives as well as liberals, because the representation of real, rational conservatism on the airwaves is even smaller than the liberal and progressive coverage, to the extent that most people think "conservatism" means being against abortion, gay rights, efforts toward energy independence (which for conservatives is a national security issue) and disbelief in climate change and it's potential impacts.

Barry Goldwater would disagree, probably in total. Nixon would differ on most if not all points. Neither would equate religious social conservatism with Republican or conservative values .

So let's get this done for everyone. It's infuriating to listen to people like Rush, Savage and Imus from a center-left perspective, but for a real conservative - and as a Lib, I share many conservative positions and views - listening to these idiots must be absolutely humiliating, realizing that such pinheads have more access to political speech than traditional economic and Constitutional Conservatives.

Or as they are referred to by Rush, "liberals."

tag: Conservatism, Conservative, Don Imus, Rush Limbaugh, Hate Speech, Liberalism, Liberty, Media, MSM, Hate Radio

In Homage to Harry Reid's Giant Testicles

I dugg this and I think you will too.
The Rude Pundit Bows down :

Each and every time Bush has tried to pathetically swing a right hook at his face, the Nevada Senator's bent back so that Bush hit only air. Reid's danced and then returned a left uppercut to Bush's chin. The Senate passes an Iraq funding bill with a timeline for troop withdrawal and benchmarks. Bush goes all batshit and says he'll veto it, doesn't wanna talk about, dadadadadamyfingersareinmyearsIcanthearyou. What does Reid do? Does he talk about compromise and "working with the White House"? Fuck no. He grabs his pendulous balls and says, "Eat shit and die," and then says he'll back Russ Feingold's bill that cuts off funds for the war except for a narrowly defined mission.

Reid's been to Iraq, been to Walter Reed - here's what he said about that visit: "To say, Mr. President, that I left Walter Reed depressed is an understatement. We've all heard the stories about Walter Reed...Go to Walter Reed. Listen to the parents. Listen to the people that are hurt." Reid describes how private contracting is destroying the hospital and the military, as well as how the lack of resources is affecting the patients there.

Yesterday, in his pissy little press conference, Bush tried to attack back, saying that Democrats are playing games and are delaying his funding request for the troops. Not missing a fuckin' beat, Reid slammed back, "Democrats will send President Bush a bill that gives our troops the resources they need and a strategy in Iraq worthy of their sacrifices. If the President vetoes this bill he will have delayed funding for troops and kept in place his strategy for failure."

Give 'em hell, Harry!

As usual, The Rude Pundit is a source of hilariously Graphic Truth.

read more | digg story

tag: Harry Ried, The Rude Pundit, Digg, , military, veterans, accountablity, George W. Bush, Walter Reed Army Medical Center, separation of powers, Congress, Emergency Spending Bill

Karl Rove

Ridicule can be deadly in politics. It's deadly accurate when the target is ridiculous. Karl Rove gets the treatment in this Emnem - styled music video by AndyCobbonUTube.

I found via comments at InTheDark, about this post about the WaPo story about the Libby conviction. I'd intended to talk about this anyway, so two birds, one great hook. Rove is, of course, one of very many "unindigted co-conspiritors" in this case. And as I understand, Libby was not convicted on the basis of a conspiracy to defraud the public into war, but rather lying about part of the effort to discredit Valerie Plame and her husband, who knew better.

Jury : Libby the "Fall Guy" for Cheney

The jury is in and (righties like Howie will never agree) they have found Vice President Dick Cheney and Special Assistant to the President Carl Rove guilty of leaking the name of a covert CIA agent -- Valerie Plame -- to the press.

The jurors who huddled around two pushed-together conference tables for 10 days, meticulously filling 34 pages of facts from the trial on a large flip chart, believed that Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff had been "pilloried" for a CIA leak that other top White House aides had committed along with him, according to one member of the panel.

"We're not saying that we didn't think Mr. Libby was guilty of the things we found him guilty of," said the juror, Denis Collins. "But it seemed like he was . . . the fall guy."

You don't say? Wow. What a shock that piece of news is. The fall guy, though, for whom?

During the jury's days of methodical deliberations, "it was said a number of times, 'What are we doing with this guy here?' " Collins told reporters on the steps outside the federal courthouse. "Where's Rove, where's -- you know, where are these other guys?" Collins said, referring to Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and Richard L. Armitage, a former deputy chief of staff who testimony showed had been the first person to leak Plame's name.

Moreover, Collins said, jurors believed that Libby had been carrying out a directive by his immediate boss, Cheney, to "go out and talk to reporters" to tarnish Wilson's reputation. But Collins said jurors stopped short of discussing whether the vice president specifically urged Libby to tell journalists about Plame's CIA job.

In The Dark is the work of Peter K. Fallon, Ph.D. of Chicago, and Assistant Professor of Journalism at Roosevelt University. As 23 year veteran of the television industry, 18 years with NBC News' "Today" program, I think we can stipulate that he knows a news story when he sees one - even if it's one largely untold.

Of course, this "fall guy" should fall. But this must be the start, not the finish.

Let us not forget that in outing Plame, an entire intelligence network dealing directly with the proliferation of atomic weaponry and technology, reputedly with good contacts in Iran, Iraq and Pakistan was blown. The proper outcome for such a willful compromise of vital national security assets is a lifetime making little ones out of big ones at Levenworth. Not to put too fine a point on it, such an act is, quite literally, unambiguously treason; in furtherance of other acts which are in themselves frauds upon the American People, Contempt of Congress, conspiracy to defraud the American people by means of an illegal war and perhaps more. The illegal wire-tapping alone is more than sufficient grounds for George Bush to be removed from office. In defending it publicly, George Bush, in the words of former Watergate celeb, John Dean, became "the first President to publicly admit to an impeachable offense."

Indeed, there are so many reasons why impeachment should be Job One, it's difficult to comprehend why the process is not already underway.

I'm particularly baffled as to why Nancy Pelosi is saying "impeachment is off the table," especially in the light of a flood of individual petitions and now state resolutions. Perhaps it was part of her political calculation to not appear too eager to become interim President - but at this point, it's starting to look more like she is shirking her plain duty.

Impeach! Or be faced with the looming suspicion that powerful Democrats have as much to hide in these matters as powerful Republicans.

And, yes, I'm talking to you, Senator Reid.

tag: Nevada Politics, Nevada Blogs, Impeach the President, High Crimes and Misdemenors, Nevada Caucus, Sen. Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Scooter Libby, Dick Cheney, Valerie Plame, Downing Street Memo, Karl Rove

Iraq: Forget winning. Forget losing. Let's beat the spread.

The Blog | Sen. Harry Reid: The Clock is Ticking, Mr. President | The Huffington Post

From Sen. Harry Reid's Blog:

Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there. We obviously want to support what commanders in the field say they need, but apparently even the Joint Chiefs do not support increased combat forces for Baghdad.

There's an even simpler reason, Harry. It's wrong. Going in was wrong, the people who planned the war were wrong, the administrators sent there are wrong, the ideas were wrong, the priorities were wrong, the money went to the wrong people; everything about this war was and is comprehensively wrong.

And now, after Cheney gets bitch-slapped by the Saudis, we are supposed to be their proxy army in a religious civil war between Islamist factions? We don't OWN a dog in this hunt, Senator. Not even our Islamic citizens do; as with all religious wars, it has almost nothing at all to do with the religions in question - and looked at it that way, we have neither laudable nor illegitimate reasons for trying to pick a winner.

Senator, I remind you that you represent a state of Casinos, and in the parlance of the casinos, it's not whether you win or lose; it's whether you beat the spread.

The House of Saud has lots of money, let them train and equip their own cannon fodder. Hell, let them hire mercenaries from Blackwater at the going rate.

I see no reason why we should be expending lives and treasure to protect Saudi interests. If Americans must die in this war, at least they should die very far in the black, with robust survivor insurance and pre-paid disability coverage.

We do need to increase recruitment of Regular Forces people so that the Guard and Reserves can go home, to replace casualties and to replace those who leave as soon as stop-loss measures expire. We need money to deal with the long term health care costs of the wounded and and their post-traumatic stress. And we clearly need to have a new generation of general officers, which means there must be larger classes of cadets, at least for the next few years.

Meanwhile, Sir, I suggest that research into more practical crops for bio-fuel generation than corn (ones that will grow as well or better in cornfields) and a much higher priority for both bio-fuel production and nuclear energy. We need a realistic way of dealing with nuclear waste. That's not Yucca Mountain - we need fuel reprocessing, ideally on-site.

We also need to look into sustainable crops for paper and fiber. That would be hemp, and hemp could further reduce our dependency on petrochemicals for fiber. It takes less fuel to harvest and process for paper. It makes better jeans than imported third=world cotton and you can't smoke it, unless you like migraine headaches, so lets get rid of that dumb law. Hemp is a not bad crop for stabilizing a clear-cut, so the timber companies might not scream as much as one might think, especially as the waste foliage and residue from fiber extraction could be feedstock for bio-fuel production. Oh, and giving the Mexican textile industry a huge boost wouldn't hurt our border issues any much.

Here's another suggestion for you; the deregulation of ethanol production for individuals. So long as they are using a properly designed, factory-inspected automated distillation apparatus, they may produce as much as they like for private use or sale.

At one stroke, you've made it possible for many small businesses to turn their waste streams into fuel for their business operations, for households to generate an additional revenue stream in poor areas and all without a single tax dollar being spent. Of course, a fuel still would not make drinkable ethanol from organic kitchen and yard waste with the occasional dog turd thrown into the mix. At best, one could hope for "relatively non-toxic."

But, yes, it is predictable that this will result in a proliferation of private distillation for consumption. Whether this is a problem depends mostly on how we chose to react to that reality. If nothing else, ethanol stills are a lot less toxic than meth labs, and sketchy folk can make money brewing 'shine, maybe they won't blow themselves up or poison their kids with toxic methamphetamine fumes. At the very least, alcohol is somewhat less personally destructive. Certainly it would be possible to create an infrastructure for reliable testing and grading of potable alcohols, and that gives you the ability to place a tax upon it, if you care to. If a tax stamp on a bottle of shine means "assured to be non-lethal," I think that's likely a tax paid for a useful service.

We need to start thinking seriously about simple and incremental means to soften the blow of a fuel crunch in case of a general middle east conflict and we need to free ourselves from being caught up in that dynamic. Driving down the world price of crude oil will definitely suck a lot of energy out of various terrorist campaigns and some very unfriendly regimes. Every barrel conserved or replaced is tiny victory in preventing widespread warfare over dwindling oil supplies as well as a significant boost to our economy and every individual bottom line.

Being addicted to mid-east oil makes it impossible for us to be an honest broker. Furthermore, it's a low cost way of developing a technology that could dissipate the looming Chinese energy crunch, forestalling a nasty resource crisis, and one that cannot be seen by the Chinese as "meddling," which almost any other approach could be. I'd much rather sell them a solution than be on the wrong side of their problem, and I feel I'm on firm Yankee ground when I say that.

Democrats - and indeed, Republicans and every stripe Independents need to start thinking outside of the box. We cannot afford to prop up current energy conglomerates to keep them doing what they are doing. We have already lost six critical years due to the Cheney "energy plan," and clearly sustainability was not part any part of that. It's time to throw wide the doors,and redirect the tax breaks and grants to sustainable energy. Let the market sort things out. After years of windfall profits, they have the resource to do very well by themselves if they choose to do well by us. They DO need to be reminded who is in charge of this nation, every bit as much as every other special interest who has been on the Iraqi Gravy Train to Hell.

Them what caused the mess outta be on the front lines of cleaning up the mess - or paying for it. But it would be wrong to think that the Iraqi clusterfuck was the result of malice. Had it been just that, we would not be in such an intractable mess. No, we have been ill-used and ill-advised by a generation of Neocon idealists, people who wanted to change the world for the better, in the very worst way. And lo, they were half-way successful. They did change the world, and they did it in the worst way.

But the fault was not in their lack of compassion, or of foresight; it certainly was not for a lack of sheer brainpower. It was due to the though that you could actually set off vast changes in how we do everything and predict a particular outcome.

Nope. You can initiate vast changes and influence a positive outcome by spotting and amplifying positive trends while damping negative ones. OR, you can aim toward a particular future with some reliability by focusing very narrowly and influencing change toward that particular end while accepting random fluctuations. You cannot do both at once on a massive scale and get anything you particularly want.

When things go to badly wrong, when the friction and stress levels in a particular area get too bad, you get rising levels of violence and even open warfare. Warfare is a symptom of large, systemic problems, so starting a war as a matter of foreign policy is akin to curing a cold with a syringe full of live rubella. Yes, you can then cure the rubella and when you have done so, if the patient survives, likely the cold will have passed as well. But they weren't cured of one disease; they simply survived two.

Their planning did not account for people who did not use their economic and social models as a basis for their own thoughts. It did not account for people who did not think in classical western terms, or with the biases built into English or the assumptions about the cultural roles of religion Americans take in with the mass-market formula we are given in place of that nasty pornographic breast milk. There was no place in their plans for chaos, for randomness, for sheer human perversity - and that is what you are dealing with in nearly pure form in the theatre of war.

Overwhelming firepower will overcome a large amount of chaos - but only by means of paradoxical destroying the remaining traces of order. And armies just plain suck at creating conditions suited for orderly civilian life; people who understand that don't do well in armies. Hell, that's one of the most persuasive reason we HAVE a large army; expensive as it is, it's both more useful and far cheaper than the prisons it would need to be replaced with.

The problem was not so much that the Bushes hadn't done sufficient planning; oh no. The problem is that they had far too many plans, far too many ideas, far too many people who were sure they knew how to get the job done! Not one of them would stray from their ideological purity to accept the plans or the input of the people who grew up there, knew the culture and had an idea of what would work and what was doomed to failure.

So we have the Neocon pattern of Faith-Based Failure, the folly of creating chaos and then trying to mold that chaotic mess as if it were wet sand at the beach. It's an apt analogy, for even if it had worked, it could only have worked to that extent; a superficial appearance of a vast and intricate order at the mercy of the first wave, rainstorm or passing spaniel.

But we are left with a big pile of chaos, and we must make the best of it. The best thing to do with chaos is to treat it like a big old murky pond filled with old tires, catfish and crawdads. You bait a line, throw it in and let your mind wander to your granny and her famous gumbo.

The worst possible mistake would be to attempt to plan a new energy infrastructure. That could take decades and we certainly do not have twenty or thirty years to piss away on this. The best way is to encourage as many potential solutions as possible so that competition and experience can narrow things down. Arguments over which fuel-stocks congress should support are dumb, just as arguments over whether we should emphasise wind, solar, nuclear or geothermal research and development. In all cases, the answer should be "yes." I'd say the idea would be to think in terms of tax breaks or subsidies contingent on units of energy delivered, with an eye toward making start-ups possible, and real dollars dependant on engineering and production efficiencies.

In other words, make it possible for as many people to try as many different approaches to this problem as possible. Start an energy rush!

This is not cause for panic or despair. Yes, it is the end of an era; we must change the way we do things because we are well past the point of diminishing returns. We certainly must take global warming seriously, and I think it prudent to prepare as well as we can for potential worst cases, not because I think the worst case predictions are that likely to come true, but because we will be prepared for the shocks, disasters and dislocations that we cannot possibly have anticipated.

I absolutely do not think there's any need to consider it as the likely end of civilization. It does mean a change in how we go about obtaining our needs and our comforts, it certainly implies rethinking how we upholster our caves - but a huge amount of the necessary thinking and prototyping has been done, is well understood and is already creeping into use. Some judicious tweaking of building codes could turn that into a wholesale rush.

The great advantage of a combination of passive conservation and diffuse technologies such as ethanol and bio-diesel produced in useful quantities close to or even by the end user is that aside from the obvious advantages, it's another layer of disaster-proofing that requires no central co-ordination or management.

It means that if mass energy distribution is disrupted by some disaster, there is in place a nearby capacity to brew up needed fuel, and a great deal of fuel in individual hands. The sheer advantage, for instance, of a higher percentage of people having a full tank of fuel in a time of evacuation is obvious - as is the advantage of having a large and distributed excess capacity for fuel generation from whatever biomass is at hand.

In national security terms, it means that nobody can hold us hostage - cutting off petrochemical supplies would be an inconvenience, not a disaster.

In cultural terms, it should mean a gradual drift toward sustainable living at or above the level of comfort we have become accustomed to and with the degree of mobility a free people require. I do not see this as an either-or, I see it as a range of choices; there are urban dwellers that wouldn't bother with cars if they had viable alternatives and could rent a car any time they felt the need. Enough people do this now that it's clearly both practical and cost-effective. More urban rapid transit would make this more possible.

But there is no way that people can be forced to change their whole way of life overnight as many radical greens would like. The only way a society changes is because it's to the advantage of individuals to change where they go, what they do and how they go about doing it; what they choose to buy and what they consider valuable to them. From that perspective, there is no single magical solution. There are many millions of tiny improvements that can add up to a magical result, if we go about things intelligently. It's possible, even easy to generate huge multiples of effect by tossing regulatory and incentive snowballs downhill - so long as you don't try to predefine who's yard the huge snowball lands in. Toss enough snowballs, and the "right" people will have more than enough to keep them fat, rich and busy for the next hundred years.

As I said, we need an energy rush. This will inevitably lead to a glut, because all of the parallel efforts to reduce energy dependence. So then you are left with all the things you could do if there were cheap enough energy to throw around... and the really smart folks are thinking about that opportunity already.

A lot of our problems could solve each other if we simply introduced them to one another. You put your hog farm together with a co2 emitting power plant and bio-reactor producing oil rich algae from hog waste and co2-rich stack gas. Suddenly your two waste streams are raw material for a whole new industrial process with nearly zero additional footprint and the operation costs covered by now-absent disposal overhead.

Instead of emissions and waste, you have a new raw product which can be used in the power plant, and the compressed, energy rich residue that can be animal feed. That smells green to me - as in greenbacks.

We have to step away from a culture that spends far too much time and effort trying to keep people from doing things we think they shouldn't outta do and start thinking about how to get folks actively exercising their perversity bumps for profit. The people who are generating the solutions, who are doing the non-linear thinking, the very people who support the progressive politics that swept you into the Majority Leader's suite are the very people the other guys have been pandering to, with their obsessions about social conformity and their willingness to create a living hell on earth for others in the name of forestalling hell for themselves.

Now, I learned in Sunday School that human sacrifice was a bad thing. Is that still taught in Sunday School, Senator? I think it's an important question to ask of your particularly Christian colleagues to your right.