Ouch.

Via The American Assembler.

Ugh. How awful.

These kids went to my Elementary School, and the murders took place in the neighborhood of my Middle School.

Really sick.

Ahhhhhhhhh!!!

CNN last night, presented without qualification, without challenge.:

So, besides saying that if Kerry wins the terrorists win -- a statement so ridiculous and scary it makes me want to bash my head into a wall -- note that the statement also says that we are fighting Al Qaeda in Iraq. Iraq is a war against Al Qaeda? What a complete load of shit!

And again, I can't stress this enough, our presence in Iraq is good for Al Qaeda. A more moderate policy towards the Middle East, what the statement implies a Democratic President would institute, would probably weaken Al Qaeda's support and recruitment, while our aggressive policy clearly has emboldened them and created more sympathy for their cause among Arabs.

Atrios suggests that everyone call CNN and complain:

Atlanta:
404-827-1500

Washington:
202-898-7900

Someone want to remind me again how our health care system makes any sense and how we would never want to subject ourselves to the horrors of universal coverage, when a woman in Utah was missing part of her skull for four months because she couldn't pay to have it put back on?

The woman was driving drunk, not wearing a seatbelt and didn't have a driver's license, so, you know, she's an idiot. But still, four months without a piece of your skull seems a bit cruel.

As some of you may have heard and most of you certainly haven't (and don't care), Phish announced yesterday that they will be disbanding at the end of their summer tour, this time for good.

Those of you who know me well know that I'm quite the little Phish fan. I've seen them live 34 times since 1993, which is small potatoes when compared to many others' attendance, but still about 30 times more than I've seen any other musical act. (For a truly frightening look at the obsessive nature of Phish fans, have a look at my Phish stats, compiled by ZZYZX.

Phish has had a huge hand in shaping my musical tastes, not only with their own music, but through their influences, covers, spin-offs, etc. I have enormous respect for the four of them. They've consistently shown integrity and humility while becoming huge stars, something that is more than rare. They've built an amazing organization and fanbase that give back to every community they pass through (through the Mockingbird and Waterwheel Foundations) and they've done it on their own terms, without corporate sponsors or radio or MTV exposure.

It has always amused me -- and occasionally saddened me -- to watch how the music press and music-loving friends of mine tend to dismiss Phish. To have any credibility as a high-minded music critic, you're generally required to loathe Phish, at least in public. They're "noodlers," "hippies," or worse.

Invariably the people who say these things don't know a thing about the band except the impression they get of the legions of fans, who admittedly don't always paint the most flattering picture. (Then again, while Woodstock 99 erupted in riots and fires, Phish's Millennium concert in Florida , the largest concert in the world that night, saw the army hired to clean up sent home early because the fans had sorted and bagged most of the garbage themselves. ) For me, though, it's always been about the music, not the fans or the "scene."

I've been inspired by Phish's refusal to stay still. Every album is different, they're constantly reinventing themselves musically. They take huge risks, which don't always pay off, but they're lucky enough to have fans who are willing to suffer the bumps and bruises that inevitably come with something new. It's easy for a band to get on stage every night and play some hits, the same every night. Phish has arguably never played the same song (the same way) twice.

At their best, I've never heard anything like it. Twenty-some years of constant playing together has created in them a sort of collective mind, and the unspoken communication among them is astounding. I'm fully aware that I bring a lot to this appreciation and that it's far from objective. My knowledge of their music and their personalities allows me to follow along in a way that's impossible with music that isn't as familiar. But what I feel I've really connected to more than anything else is their passion for the music. The joy they experience when it's all clicking is infectious in a way that's hard to describe.

And this brings me to the break up: I fully support it. If they continued playing and touring but they all didn't love it, Phish wouldn't be good. It shows a lot of integrity and care for what they've created that they're willing to let it go, particularly knowing how disappointed -- even angry -- many people will be.

Trey (guitarist) was on Charlie Rose tonight (transcript not available, audio to be posted here) and he talked a little about some of the angry letters he's gotten already. People accuse them, and him specifically, of being motivated by ego and not caring about the fans. They say he's ruining something beautiful. Of course what these fans don't realize is that it can't be beautiful if he doesn't want to do it. They see him as owing them something in return for their years of support. And who's got the ego problem again?

Artists should always do what they want. They owe us nothing. If you like what they create, great. If they change directions and it's not your thing, go find another thing. Better yet, make your own thing. If it's dictated by the fans -- by the market -- it's not art, it's product.

Anyway, thank you Phish. It's been super.

The New York Times sums it up pretty well:

UPDATE :: For all your searchers looking for a transcript of the interview, check this page next week, they'll post the audio of the show. It doesn't look like they provide transcripts.

UPDATE 2 :: The Phish Archive has transcribed the first part of the interview.

Jon Stewart gave the commencement address at William & Mary, his alma mater.

It's definitely worth reading the whole thing (might not want to have a mouth full of milk when you do) but here's my favorite part:

Well, we had a good run. That whole notion of a free society with free access to ideas, by the people, for the people and all that -- it was a nice idea and it was sure fun for a while there, wasn't it?

So "disparaging to fast food restaurants" is now considered off-limits? This really cements my long-held opinion that MTV has turned into one of the biggest pieces of garbage ever.

Last week a friend who lives in England wrote that she had heard that Americans had been "restricted" from seeing Michael Moore's new movie until after the election. I wrote back that the thought made me laugh. No, I said, we don't have that kind of blatant censorship here, it's just that Disney won't distribute it, which, you know, they certainly don't have to. The film will be shown, and will make a bazillion dollars.

This is all true. It's unlikely that we will have overt censorship of this kind coming directly from our government anytime soon. But the Disney thing and this latest bullshit from MTV (Viacom), is a different kind of censorship, and one that's possibly more dangerous because it's much harder to stop.

"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is a merge of state and corporate power." -- Benito Mussolini

Newsday cites reports by human rights organizations that U.S. forces are holding relatives of wanted criminals as "bargaining chips," a clear violation of international law.

The Beat Bush Blog notes the specific sections of the Fourth Geneva Convention pertaining to such actions:

Wonderful.

This brings up something that's been bothering me about all the discussion of the Geneva Conventions. Much has been made of whether or not certain groups of prisoners "qualify" for protection under the Conventions, and it seems like it basically just comes down to our decision. If we decide prisoners at Guantanamo are "stateless combatants" we don't have to abide by the Conventions. If we ship prisoners to Syria, we can pull their fingernails out if we want.

It all strikes me as completely ridiculous. If we believe in the human rights the Geneva Conventions are based on, how do we justify picking and choosing which human beings it applies to? Protecting human rights with international treaties doesn't mean anything if countries can just decide that certain enemies just don't qualify. The Geneva Conventions didn't anticipate the type of enemy we're now dealing with, but it seems to me that human rights are human rights. Whether or not the enemy is a member of a government army is wholly irrelevant.

And surely our respect for human rights is not dependent on our enemy's respect for human rights. As has been said over and over again, we should be holding ourselves to a higher standard.

It must be nice to not hold any elective office, and not be running for one. He's really taking the gloves off.

Go, Al Go.

More questions about the timing of the latest don't forget to be afraid announcement.

No new intelligence, nothing but a reminder of Al Qaeda's intention to attack the United States. Is it likely that this has slipped anyone's mind?

This is a big problem when our security agencies are so closely tied to the politics of the current government. You never know what to trust. It could be honest due dilligence, or it could be cynical fear-mongering designed to shore up support for Bush when his poll numbers are at their lowest. They have said recently they're mounting a large campaign to get Bush back on track, maybe this is just part of the plan.

What's the solution? Some kind of independent oversight of our intelligence services would be a good start. I suppose that's Congress' job, and Senator Durbin, a member of the Intelligence Committee, was complaining that his committee hadn't been briefed on any of the things Ashcroft was saying.

Damn it.

Salon (subscription or day pass required) reports that Armed Forces Radio, broadcast to a million soldiers around the world, airs Rush Limbaugh every day (subscription or day pass required). And what does the government program to balance out Rush's barrage of extreme partisan nutballiosity?

[cricket sound]

That's right, nothing.

Your tax dollars are going towards broadcasting someone who compares the torture at Abu Ghraib to a fraternity prank to all of our soldiers. What does Armed Forces Radio have to say about it?

[cricket sound]

Just kidding. They did say something. They said that they only air Rush because he's popular, and they base their programming on what's popular, not on the content.

Quoth the spokesman:

Hmm. Well, okay, if they base it only on ratings and all, that's at least a non-partisan measuring stick and there really isn't anyone on the other side who's that popul -- HOWARD STERN!!

What about Stern, who has been on a serious tear against the Bush administration lately?

Spokesguy?

Then..

Yes, these are all quotes from the same person.

So Stern's sexual humor isn't appropriate, but Rush's hate filled tirades about how Democrats hate America and women deserve to be harassed and it's really not such a big deal that American soldiers tortured and possibly killed prisoners, that's appropriate. Oh, and he's a pill popper.

It makes me ill to think I'm paying to have this jerkweed's hate-filled rants broadcast to our troops all over the world. Ill I tells ya!

I went down to Seattle's waterfront this morning and stood in the rain for two hours to see John Kerry give a speech on energy policy. I even got to shake his hand. I'm all a flutter.

It was a good speech. He's a much better speaker than anyone generally gives him credit for. The speech was short, not huge on details, but reasonably inspiring. The one detail I remember is a plan to generate 20% of America's energy from renewable sources by 2020.

This is right after I shook his hand. Too bad he looked down. Those Secret Service guys should lighten up a little.

Note Sean Astin (Sam from Lord of the Rings) at far right

Here are some more, mostly crappy, photos.

After the rally I wandered up to the new Central Library, Seattle's latest big deal architectural thingie. It opened on Sunday to wide acclaim.

It took me about 20 minutes to find where they were keeping the books, having seen only row upon row of computers until that point. There are lots of books, though, shelved in something called "The Spiral" a slowly descending ramp covering 4 floors.

Here are some more photos I took, in my continuing series I call Shots That Would Be Good If I Had A Better Camera.

Remember when Bob Woodward's book came out and there was all that talk about the Saudis promising to help Bush out this year by boosting oil production? I wrote about it here, here, and here.

An article in USA Today yesterday had this to say:

Why isn't this front page news everywhere? This is exactly what Woodward said would happen. Now, OPEC changes production when they want and there's no way to prove that they're doing it specifically for Bush, but the whole thing is more than a little bit suspicious.

At the very least, the fact that allegations of backroom deals with the Saudis have been made warrants a mention in this piece. Maybe if the piece gets wider coverage, someone will do some -- what's it called -- journalism on it.

Contradicting the AP story yesterday about planned terrorist attacks this summer, "officials" now say there is no new intelligence suggesting an attack is being planned. Despite this, Ashcroft and FBI Director Mueller are issuing a "new call for public awareness."

What the fuck? The AP reports new and "highly credible" evidence, "among the most disturbing received by the government" since 9/11, and less than 24 hours later Ashcroft is saying it ain't so.

Ashcroft and the Bush administration have a distinct interest in scaring the living shit out of every American for the next 5 months, and I predict we'll see more and more meaningless and vague "calls for vigilance" like this. We'll surely get a few orange alerts.

Of course, all of this would be a good thing if we had any reason to believe a word these jerks say.

I would love to hear more about this. Why these two so completely contradictory stories?

The Times and Iraq

Several examples of Articles That Sucked are given, including this gem:

My first question is: Why is this story, the apology, not leading on page A1? (I don't have the print edition, but online it's in a small box on the side, between a Lord of the Rings ad and a travel story.)

The second big thing they fail to adequately address here is that the source of most of the misinformation they were so taken in by was our own government. They mention that "the accounts of these exiles were often eagerly confirmed by United States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq," but where's the follow-up on that? U.S. officials were puffing up faulty and controversial intelligence, presenting it as if it was NOT controversial, in order to justify a war they desperately wanted to happen. Where's the giant A1 story on that?

The last line of the story indicates that it may be coming. Let's just hope they live up to this promise.

The paper has also put together a page sampling their coverage of the buildup to war.

Terrorists are planning a summer attack.

It's too bad they don't know the time, place or method of attack, because as Condi told the 9/11 Commission, if the administration doesn't know those things specifically, there's really nothing they can do. It's not, how do you say, actionable.

**shiver**

Hey, speaking of Condi, whatever happened to her? She's really been kept out of sight since her testimony.

Wow.

Slate is reporting that The New York Times will publish an "Editor's Note" reassessing its pre-Iraq War coverage, particularly its coverage of weapons of mass destruction.

Under particular scrutiny is Judith Miller, who was positively nutty on the WMD issue, vigorously reporting every tiny little scrap of anything from anyone as evidence of major weapons.

There is also word that the paper's Public Editor Daniel Okrent may be preparing a column on the subject.

The note may be published as early as tomorrow.

Here's a catalog of Miller's horrendous reportage.

You'd think he would have learned to keep his fool mouth shut by now.

I guess Bull Connor was just "scaring" civil rights marchers with his dogs too, huh Trent? Dickhead.

According to FactCheck.org, the only thing the ad gets right is that Bush signed the Patriot Act and that Kerry voted for it.

Political ads have never been about telling the truth, but usually they're only gross distortions of the facts. This is just a big steaming pile of lie.

Of course, technically it's not a lie.

They say "Kerry would now repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools [wire taps, subpoena powers and surveillances] against terrorists." Right, he would repeal the Patriot Act's use of these tools and replace it with the Patriot Act's use of these tools with judicial oversight.

Not only is it a flagrantly misleading statement, walking right up to the lie line and taking a big shit on it, it's completely hypocritical.

It is small consolation that the vast majority of people report that these ads don't change their opinions. They get to some people, and it's a damn shame.

There outta be a law. Instead of "I'm George W. Bush and I approve of this message" how about "I'm George W. Bush and I personally stand behind every statement made in this ad. If it is found to be misleading or false, I will personally shoot myself in the foot."

The Washington Post reports that Al Qaeda is alive and well, despite the War on Terra. In fact, the report says, the terrorist network has probably benefitted from our actions against them.

Yes. It makes perfect sense.

After 9/11, there was unprecedented unity of purpose in the civilized world. The terrorists must be stopped, these kinds of acts simply cannot be tolerated. But instead of taking advantage and creating a global network of law enforcement agencies working together to infiltrate and destroy terrorist organizations, we relied on old-school military force, dispersing the terrorists around the globe. Then, once they were everywhere, we started another war -- pretending it was related to the first war -- and drove thousands of people into the terrorists' recruitment offices. Great plan.

The strange thing about this 18,000 number is that it is based on intelligence that the group trained 20,000 fighters in Afghanistan before the Taliban fell, and 2,000 have been killed or captured during the War on Terra. There is not accounting for any new Al Qaeda fighters who have joined in the past 2 years, a number that I would guess is fairly significant. It seems that they are not counting these new recruits as Al Qaeda, but as "foreign fighters" and insurgents in Iraq.

According to Taegan Goddard, anyway, and I'm inclined to agree.

Remember when Howard Dean got raked across the coals for saying that America was not safer because of Saddam's capture? People lost their minds over that.

Hmmm... turns out ole Howie was right, huh? I for one thought he was right at the time, but the media, the Republicans, even most Democrats, went apoplectic over Dean's "craaazzy" remark.

It doesn't much matter, but the thing about Dean was obviously that he was too smart and too honest to run for President. He was right about most of the things he said, but right don't always play in Peoria. People don't care if you're right, they want to hear that things are going well. They certainly don't want to hear that this great victory -- the dramatic de-spider-holing of Saddam -- hadn't really made much of a difference. They wanted to believe that all of a sudden the resistance would end. Their erstwhile leader publicly humiliated, the insurgents would lay down their weapons and dedicate themselves to building a peaceful and free Iraq. Also, terrorists the world over would suddenly see how the capture of Saddam had anything in the world to do with them, and they would mostly give up, too. At the very least, they would think long and hard about messing with the U.S. again.

Boy, in retrospect it all seems painfully naïve, doesn't it?

Matt Yglesias brings home the larger point:

Word.

I can't believe I'm going to say this, but it wasn't too bad of a speech. You know, considering who was giving it and all. Well, let me modify that. It was a good speech in terms of it possibly having the effect the White House intended, and that is to halt the free fall of the president's poll numbers. Then again, his numbers have probably gotten about as low as they can get.

Certainly he mushed up the war in Iraq with the War on Terra, as usual, and there was a shameful little bit where he highlighted Nick Berg's murder and a couple of other brutal acts by terrorists, pointing out how "evil" they are, but that's all to be expected.

He did offer some details about what this handover on June 30th will mean, but it struck me as a lot of dreamy fantasy. He kept saying "complete sovereignty" and stuff like that. He made it sound as though 138,000 U.S. troops are going to be hanging around, you know, just to keep an eye on things, and we'll have our biggest embassy anywhere in the world, with several field offices around the country, but they won't be making any decisions or anything. They'll be advising. They won't be rulers, they'll be technical experts.

Overall, it was one of the better speeches I've seen him give. Not in terms of actual substance or any belief that it will really mean anything, but in terms of how it could go over.

One thing though, can somebody PLEASE release a memo about how to pronounce Abu Ghraib? It's pretty ridiculous to have the president stumbling over it, he pronounced it in three distinct ways in the same sentence.

Or how about this conspiracy theory: They purposely have him mispronounce it in order to downplay its significance. To the average Joe Dumbass, it can't be all that important if the president doesn't even know how to say it. One of Rove's little psychology tricks. How about that?

Seriously, though, if this had been something he had been talking about for the past two weeks, as he damn well should have been, he'd know how to say it.

One final note: One of his big applause-getting lines was: "Iraqis can be certain a free Iraq will always have a friend in the United States of America." Big standing O for that one.

Sounds great, but of course it's bullshit. Everybody knows that the United States doesn't have friends, it has interests. Ask Rwanda.

UPDATE :: transcript of the speech

White House statement today: "... with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning."

It's a good idea to knock the place down, but it would have been a much better idea to knock it down right off, and not use it as our own hell hole. To the world and to history Abu Ghraib will always symbolize America's decline and not Saddam's buchery.

Oh, and can we get some impartial search of the place to happen before they blow it up? Just to make sure they don't pile all the evidence of prisoner abuse in there and then blow it up?

The release also states that the U.S. will construct a new, modern, maximum-security prison to replace Abu Ghraib. I'm sure the new prison will be free of all forms of abuse and torture, except of course those which are abided here at home, like executions and stuff.

Lawyers for Lynndie England are seeking to have her confession thrown out because her Miranda rights were violated.

Despite her apparent lack of a single redeeming quality, I must grudgingly acknowledge that she has rights like anyone else. Still, it's more than a little ironic for her to complain of her rights being violated, considering, you know, how respectful she is of the rights of other accused persons.

Hmm, this doesn't seem suspicious at all...

Next:

There is no doubt much news to report and comment on, but today has been occupied with Roo, our beloved kitty.

A few days ago we noticed a small wound near his tail, and then on Thursday it was a big bump. My sister is a veterinary technician, so I call her with cat questions all the time. She confirmed that it was probably an abscess -- a dangerous infection -- so poor little Roo had to go the vet this morning.

And now look at him.

Oh, the indignity.

He had surgery to clean out his wound and have a drain installed to get all the gook out of there. He's been pretty woozy since we got him home, stumbling around like a drunken monkey.

It's in some ways much more difficult to take care of a sick or injured pet than it is a human, and not just because he doesn't have health insurance. Mostly it's because you can't explain anything to them, they just think they're being tortured for no reason. I suppose it's a lot like having a baby, except pets just stay babies. They look at you and seem to ask, "Why, why?" and all you can do is pour hydrogen peroxide on their wounds and lock them in the bathroom so they don't fall off the dresser. Just like a baby.

Anyway, we're sure Roo will be fine. It's one of those times when it's a good thing I'm home all the time, I don't know how we'd deal with this if we were both working all day.

Oh, and if you buy a t-shirt or something, Roo would really appreciate it. All proceeds go toward his vet bills.

Oh, and for the curious and/or sick and twisted, here's a shot of Roo's wound with drain installed. Not for the queasy.

Holy freakin' shit.

Over the past 4 years, the U.S. has given Chalbi's group $40 million. So we were paying them to give secrets to Iran, and Iran was in turn fabricating intelligence in order to lure us into ousting Saddam Hussein for them. And we fell for it -- lock, stock and barrel.

More importantly, though, it seems that Iran has been trying to pull this shit for years, but it wasn't until the Bush team took office that anyone started listening to Chalabi.

Is it just me, or does this sound like one of the biggest scandal's in history? Watergate was just dirty politics. This has resulted in thousands of deaths and arguably thrown the whole world into turmoil.

more

As you may have heard, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had some harsh words about the president yesterday, for which she is now being criticized by Republicans.

Republicans have predictably started freaking out and saying that Pelosi's comments put "American lives at risk."

Think about what they're saying here. The policies that have brought us into a war that is going horribly wrong, instigated under false pretenses, are not to blame for the deaths of American soldiers; the criticism of such policies is what is really dangerous.

The responsibility for the deaths of our servicemen and women does not end at the hand that pulls the trigger. This was an unnecessary war and none of these men and women would have been killed in Iraq if we hadn't invaded Iraq. Fewer of them would have been killed if our planning and execution in Iraq had been conducted responsibly and seriously. And to be clear, I'm talking about Iraq, not the War on Terror. Iraq.

Pelosi, to her infinite credit, did not back down.

Scott McClellan, to his infinite discredit, pronounced the topic beneath him.

Comments from the House Minority Leader regarding the competence of the President of the United States aren't worth dignifying? How about giving us some evidence of competence?

Now, for a little bit of "HOLY SHIT HOW CAN ANYONE BE SUCH A FUCKING HYPOCRITE" historical perspective, let's take a look at some things Tom DeLay and his buddies Trent Lott and Don Nickles had to say in 1999, during the war in Kosovo.

Once you've picked your jaw up off of the keyboard, let me ask you this question: Why does Tom DeLay hate America so much?

For most people, there is some celebrity that people have told them they look like more often than others. Maybe that's not true. Maybe for most people, nobody ever tells them they look like a celebrity.

In any case, The Star Estimator can help! Upload a snapshot of yourself and it will spit out the three celebrities you most resemble. That's the idea, anyway.

It's an interesting excercise in face-recognition software, and blah blah blah, but more importantly, it's about celebrities and your possible quasi relationship to them, and theirs to you.

I did it three times, with three different recent pictures. Results below.

I'm drunk in this photo -- taken last year at Liz's 30th birthday party in New York -- so Nick Cage and Gary Oldman make sense. (I have no idea if they're drinkers, but they seem like total boozers.) Dreyfuss? I hear his voice on TV commercials all the time these days.

This picture is from Erik's wedding in Alaska. I have longer hair and a surprised expression, but otherwise I think the two are pretty similar. So why Alec Baldwin from like 30 years ago? Who knows.

And who the hell is uni-browed Zinedine Zidane?

Ah-ha. He is apparently a big-time French soccer player. My mother is French, so maybe it picked up on my Frenchitude.

The last photo was taken just now, specifically for this purpose. I tried to look directly straight-on into the camera as the site says to do. It's interesting that this is the only one to yield any black guys, and any Val Kilmers.

I've never been compared to any of these celebrities before. The most common one I've gotten over the years is Keifer Southerland, and for a time a while back I got a few Brad Pitts (ha!). Those are of course only the ones people told me to my face. There is of course a chance people have been saying I look like John Goodman behind my back -- he came up when I ran the second photo again.

Perhaps more research into this little tool is warranted. Who do you look like?

Thought they couldn't get any lower?

Think again.

As Josh Marshall points out, politics is a tough business and certainly anyone running for office is giving up a good deal of their privacy, but this is ridiculous and juvenile.

Do they think this is going to impress the voters? It's hard to overstate it: these people are batshit insane.

Remember a while back when I said I was going to feature a favorite political cartoon once a week and then I only did it that one time? Had you going there, didn't I? Good times...

Well, in another brazen announcement of something that there is about a 2% chance I'll actually do, today I'm starting a series (of at least 1) of posts called "Friday Funnies." Good title, huh? Alliteration means I'm smart.

So on Fridays, instead of blogging about my cat, as others are wont to do, I'm going to try to find something funny in the world.

Here's today's -- Why You Should Never Put Your Picture on the Internet.

Kos does the math on Bush's spending in the past few months, and it's not a pretty picture. For him, that is.

By the beginning of May, Bush had raised a record $200 million, but only had $72 million left. He's spent $128 million and his poll numbers are the lowest they've ever been.

Kos also points out that Bush spent $52 million in April alone!

Remember a few months ago when the White House was saying that the Bush campaign was pretty much done with the fundraising? Well, their incredible spending -- and lack of results -- means that Bush is going to have to spend much more time this summer drumming up cash.

It can't be good for him to have to spend so much of his time raising money while Iraq gets worse and worse. It seems to me that at some point more Americans are going to be asking where the hell the "war president" is while all this is going on, and what is he doing about it? Other than making the same empty speech over and over again, even to Republican lawmakers.

As Kos points out, it also means that he won't have any time to campaign for other Republicans down the ticket, and that's what has Congressional Republicans really worried.

These days it seems like everyone, from Atrios to the freakin' National Review, is throwing some kind of fundraiser.

So, in the spirit of me-too-ism, I've thrown up a little tip jar over there in the sidebar. I don't expect it to get used, but it's there if you need it. I'm not going to call it out at the top of every page for a few weeks like Atrios or anything like that. I'm not going to give a big sob story either, just a small one: I ain't got no job.

If you feel like dropping a buck or two in there, great. Even better, buy a t-shirt, or buy ten t-shirts, some coffee mugs and a frisbee, they make great gifts! Even better than that, hire me to do some web work or to write your press release or an article for your magazine or to be a member of your celebrity entourage.

See? There are so many options.

P.S. -- Oh, and despite the title of this post, I'm not single. Sorry, ladies, spoken for! I just don't know the personal ad abbreviation for "in a relationship," probably because that just wouldn't make sense.

Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert gives a beautiful example of what many Republicans think of politicians who speak their minds in a non-partisan way. You know, people like John McCain, and ... umm ... yeah.

This is a brilliant strategy for Hastert and the other Republicans, considering, you know, how unpopular John McCain is with ordinary people.

The first part you could plausibly dismiss as a joke.

His response to the quote from McCain, though, is a beautiful little piece of bullshit art. Notice how he doesn't even come within sight of the substance of McCain's question, but in one deft move manages to strongly imply that the Senator from Arizona -- who was a prisoner of war -- doesn't understand the sacrifice made by wounded soldiers.

It's almost too ridiculous to be real. McCain asks how we can justify spending ourselves into oblivion and cutting taxes while trying to fight an exceedingly expensive and no-end-in-sight-erific war, and Hastert responds, "Look! He doesn't care about the dead and wounded soldiers! I made this connection by using a word in my sentence that he used in his, conclusively showing that he meant what I said he meant. He said sacrifice -- his word, ladies and gentlemen! You heard him! He doesn't think the soldiers are sacrificing anything!"

It's hard to imagine any sizable percentage of our citizens being stupid enough to fall for this horseshit, and yet, it seems to be the case. And the fact that he would say these things about possibly the most popular person in Congress on either side shows how completely out of touch with anything even approaching reality these nincompoops are.

McCain released a written response, using 4 sentences to completely demolish the idiots:

CBS News is reporting on "rock solid" evidence that Ahmad Chalabi personally gave Iranian Intelligence officers information so sensitive that if revealed it could, quote, "get Americans killed."

It seems that lots of people knew this guy was a fuckwad a long time ago. Cheney and Wolfowitz used him because his bullshit would get them what they wanted, a war with Saddam.

So, while whether or not Chalabi is a fucking spy is a serious question, the more serious question is whether people with access to all of our top level intelligence should have known he was a goddamn spy, or at the very least that he wasn't quite trustworthy enough to rest our entire justification for war on his freakin' word.

Impeach. Imprison.

Josh Marshall:

Now (well, soon) it's time to see if the American public has any character.

A teacher in New Mexico was suspended and later fired for "not censoring the poetry of his students."

It seems one of the students in the poetry club he advised (now permanently terminated) read a poem which criticized the war in Iraq and the administrations failure to back up its "No Child Left Behind" policy.

The military liaison? Did your high school have a military liaison? Maybe they just mean ROTC, but still, that's a chilling phrase if I ever heard one.

A General Accounting Office report has concluded that the Medicare "news packages" the administration produced and distributed violated federal law.

Remember these? They were the ones that were distributed and aired on local news stations and ended with, "from Washington, this is Karen Ryan reporting," giving the distinct impression they were news stories, when if fact they were straight-up bullshit.

The Department of Health and Human Services mounted this vigorous defense:

So, the government can distribute partisan propaganda concerning some of the most controversial legislation of the year, and disguise it as news, but it's the TV stations responsibility to catch them. "Hey, they could have caught us. It's not our fault they didn't catch on to our ridiculously dishonest scheme."

So when do these guys go to jail?

ABC News has obtained two new pictures from Abu Ghraib.

How are we going to explain these?

Spc. Sabrina Harmon               Spc. Charles Graner

Note that the man packed in ice, Manadel al-Jamadi, is not humiliated. He's not scared, hungry or tired. He's dead.

It makes me sick to my stomach that these people wear our country's uniform.

I know war is dehumanizing, and soldiers develop a certain tolerance to death, especially the death of the enemy, but there is real joy in the eyes of these two. No matter what their orders were, these are sick human beings. Their orders surely couldn't have included enjoying it so much.

Talk Left breaks down The Denver Post's report on the deaths of 5 prisoners while they were undergoing "interrogation" in U.S. custody.

Well, Debbie Daniel, a commentator on the GOPUSA website, sees these actions a little bit differently. That is, through the lens of COMPLETE INSANITY.

Her reference to Satan would indicate that she's a Christian. Need I say more? Does she have any tiny little scrap of an idea what it's supposed to mean to be Christian?

Remember when Moses dropped the other five commandments in History of the World, Part I? Maybe she managed to piece them back together.

She goes on, if you can possibly stand to read it:

So now we're okay with our treatment of Japanese-Americans during World War II? That's a policy change I hadn't heard about. Shit, why aren't we rounding up suspicious looking people now? As she says, we couldn't take a chance then, so why take a chance now?

I can't quote her anymore, it's making me sick. She goes on to bizarrely blaim "the media" for preventing her from seeing caskets returning from Iraq, forgetting of course that it was the government that tried to stop these images. And naturally she makes the insane comparisons between our treatment of prisoners and the beheading of Nick Berg, joining the ranks of conservatives who want to judge our morality by the standard of "WWTD -- What Would Terrorists Do?"

Anyway, if you're a glutton for punishment, you can read the rest of her insane rant, keeping in mind how many people are likely to agree with her.

It's nothing new that presidents running for reelection give high profile grants to need programs in the run up to an election. It sucks, but it's nothing new.

What is new is giving grants to programs that you have tried and often suceeded at completely eviscerating in your budgets.

Goddamn lying assholes.

Mark Kleiman asks the obvious question raised by this L.A. Times article: If this is just a couple of bad apples, why have three key witnesses, including a "senior official in charge of interrogations," refused to testify? Huh? Why?

Jeremy Sivits plead guilty to charges of abusing Iraqi prisoners and was given the maximum penalty: one year in jail, loss of rank and a bad conduct discharge.

His plea was in exchange for cooperating with the government in their investigations. He apparently made a tearful apology in front of the court, saying he should have done more to stop the abuse.

Some good news in the culture wars: It seems that many Catholics have a damn sight more sense than many of their idiotic leaders.

Atrios quotes an article detailing the general feeling in New Jersey that the church should "get of Governor McGreevey's back," and a piece from Businessweek pointing out the inherent hypocrisy in singling out Kerry for scrutiny.

Also see Colorado Luis on the local reaction to Biship Sheridan's recent dumbass move.

U.S. denies report aircraft attacked an Iraq wedding.

Iraqi officials say it was a wedding party, and folks were shooting into the air to celebrate, while U.S. officials maintain that militants were firing on U.S. aircraft.

Hard to tell what the truth is, but video showing a truck full of bodies, including women and children, isn't going to play well.

From ABC News, via Atrios.

Sgt. Provance goes on to describe how the investigation has focused only on the MPs and not on Military Intelligence, and how he has been threatened and ostracized for coming forward.

Let's hope there are more people like Sgt. Provance who will come forward with this kind of information. If we really believe -- and want any one else to believe -- the "a few bad apples" story, then we have to praise Provance and try to find more like him. A coverup will rightly reinforce the idea that we only want this thing to go away and to limit our embarrassment, not to find the truth. As if the behavior at the prison didn't undercut our authority enough, covering it up and then covering up the investigation can only make things worse.

It's about damn time.

You may recall that an expected report from the State Department on what the U.S. was doing to promote human rights was delayed earlier this month to avoid an unfortunate juxtaposition with the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

Well, now they've released it, and you can imagine how much they really didn't want to.

Guess which country the following excerpt refers to:

Hmmmm. Sounds pretty familiar, doesn't it? It's uncanny. But it's our report, they couldn't be talking about us. No, in fact the quote refers to Saudi Arabia, a country whose record on human rights the report rates as "poor."

Ugh. How embarrassing.

Kevin Drum illustrates Nick Confessore on the subject of the Inactive Reserves being called into service.

Confessore's description:

I doubt we're really anywhere near an actual draft situation, but they certainly seem to be getting down to the last options short of some kind of draft.

My brother, a former Army Captain, may be in the Inactive Reserves, I have to call him. Incidentally, the last time we spoke, I asked him if he had any friends in Iraq. He said he did, and that they say things are going much worse than we think. Hard to imagine.

Kos points out the blatant irony in Bush's praising of Brown v Board of Ed today.

But kudos to those "few activist" judges who redefined the "sacred institution" of segregation. And make no mistake, in 1954, segregation was a sacred institution to many people.

To sum up: Judges who protect the freedoms of people you like and/or pretend to like: good. Judges who protect the freedoms of icky gays: activists.

As Kos points out, the decision in Brown v Board of Education shows exactly why our judicial system is the way it is: to protect the Constitution from wrong-headed public opinion. I'm sure that public opinion polls in 1954 did not show much support for integration (I can't find one). The public was wrong. The Constitution protects everyone. Separate is not equal, not in schools and not in marriage.

Equal is equal, and Bush is a giant hypocrite.

Just watched yesterday's Simpsons, entitled "Bart-Mangled Banner" in which the family is sent to Alcatraz for being unpatriotic (Bart moons the flag). I also see that next week's season finale is called "Fraudcast News" and is summarized thusly: "Lisa Simpson fights for freedom of speech in Springfield by creating her own newspaper."

Looks like they're really stepping up the pointed satire.

Some quotes from yesterday's episode:

Ah, The Simpsons. Is there anything they don't know?

Just kidding.

Well, they did find a roadside bomb made from an artillery shell that contained sarin.

See? Saddam was a total liar; he said they were all gone but there was at least one left somewhere. If we hadn't invaded Iraq, killing thousands of Iraqis and losing close to a thousand of our own troops (so far), that artillery round might have hurt somebody.

I would say they would be nuts to use this as evidence that Saddam did in fact have WMD, but they are nuts, and they probably will.

And guess what? It feels fine.

That's right, gay people have started getting married in Massachusetts, and so far, not one heterosexual marriage has broken up or been prevented as a result. We haven't even seen any reports of a biblical plague or anyone being smitten from above.

No, all the reports are of happy, loving people publicly declaring their love for one another, and being granted the same rights as anyone else.

Oh, the horror.

How sad is it that our reputation around the world is so bad that our athletes are being told not to wave flags at the Olympics in Athens, for fear of angering the crowd?

It's damn sad.

The simple act of holding up our flag is now considered by many to be an act of aggression to the point where we're warning our citizens to display restraint. Personally, I'm all for restraining dumb-ass patriotism anyway, but when's the last time a nation's flag inspired such feelings all around the world? Swastika, anyone?

P.S. -- and no, I'm not comparing the U.S. to Nazi Germany in policy or action, I'm comparing the feelings of the world public toward the two.

Oh, and here's a favorite quote about patriotism:
"Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- George Bernard Shaw

As if the guy doesn't have enough problems...

Drudge, and Kevin Drum are reporting this, and I watched it this morning, so I'm reporting it to. Am I adding anything to the discussion? No.

Tim Russert is interviewing Colin Powell via a satellite feed from Jordan. Apparently the interview was scheduled for 10 minutes, but went a little long. As Russert is asking his final question -- a semi-tough one about Powell's famous speech at the U.N. -- the camera on Powell swings to the right to a nice peaceful shot of palm trees while the following exchange happens over this shot.

Apparently this Emily Miller, Powell's press aide, used to be an aide to Tom DeLay, so I'm sure she's a bit sensitive.

There was a significant audio delay, so I imagine they hadn't heard Russert begin his last question when the camera swung off of Powell, but still, what kind of a media aide ever moves the camera off of her boss while he's on national television? An ex-media aide, that's what kind.

p.s. -- I don't really feel sorry for Powell that he'll now have to apologize for this, he made this bed a long time ago by continuing to go along with his boss. In fact, I find him more responsible in a way because while Bush, Cheney, Rummy and the gang are nuts, I at least get the feeling that they actually believe in the crap they're saying. Powell, on the other hand, comes off as just pathetically following along with an ideology he doesn't share.

UPDATE :: You can watch the video here.

As many have probably read, Moveable Type has released the much anticipated version 3.0, to a whole hell of a lot of not-so-much-anticipated rage in the blog world.

The first version of their new pricing scheme was met with such immediate and widespread acrimony that they changed major aspects of it in less than 2 days.

I don't have much to say about the whole thing, except that I'm disappointed, but not enraged. I have no problem with them charging money for their software, which I have happily used for almost 2 years. I've voluntarily donated money to them, motivated not quite entirely by their carrot of a "Recently Updated" key which drives a fair bit of traffic.

They still offer a free version for personal use, which is good, but their definition of what constitutes this personal use is the big problem. The free version is limited to 1 author and 3 weblogs. The 3 blog limit is okay, sort of, but the 1 author thing is ridiculous. If you want to set up a family blog, you have to pay. Not only do you have to pay, but if you want to add your Aunt Gladys to the blog, you have to pay more.

Anyway, I'm not going to go on and on about this, because, you know, who cares. I basically agree with what Jason Kottke has to say about it: Charging for MT is fine, but the tiered pricing structure they've come up with is terrible.

This site will probably stay on MT 2.661 for now, though this means my visitors will have to suffer that insufferable server error on my comments for a while longer. I have looked into switching to WordPress, and given my tendency to jump into upgrades and redesigns without much thought of the work and time involved for little benefit, that might just happen soon. WordPress is public, open, and looks pretty damn cool.

That is all.

A new composite poll, from Steven Ruggles via Kevin Drum, shows how completely dependent Bush's approval is on "rally around the flag" kinds of moments.

It's nice to see his numbers in the toilet, and it's also nice to note that the spikes from the three highlighted events get smaller and smaller. This shows that many people have abandoned him and aren't coming back. They realize that capturing Saddam doesn't mean Bush is suddenly doing a good job, and the bad news is overwhelming any good.

The danger is that they launch an all out effort to get Osama sometime this summer or early fall, which would most likely lead to his capture. Hopefully people have seen enough by now to realize that nabbing bin Laden isn't much of a victory. It's far too little, way too late.

Another possibility is another terrorist attack in the U.S. which would inevitably produce a big bump for the president, but I'm not convinced it would be nearly as profound as it was after 9/11.

For the past 2 1/2 years we've been very aware of our vulnerability to attack, and suffering another major one could cause people to decide that the administration hasn't done its job. For most Americans, 9/11 was a complete shock, so we rallied around the president. Another attack would raise serious questions about how honestly the administration did its work of securing the homeland, and how our adventure in Iraq has completely distracted us and stolen massive resources from the real war on terror. Not to mention that the Iraq war has solidified worldwide sentiment against us, ensuring that far more people wish us harm than did before.

Consider this: If our strategy after 9/11 had been different; if we had kept troop strength up in Afghanistan to finish the job there properly; if we had used even a tiny fraction of the money we've blown on Iraq for intelligence overhauls, worldwide law enforcement efforts and more spies on the ground in terrorist organizations; if we had taken advantage of global goodwill after 9/11 instead of squandering it at light speed, would another attack be more or less likely?

In my opinion, it would obviously be far less likely.

I'm not sure that the overall "American Voter" sees things this way. Many, many people will think that if we change our leadership after an attack, we are allowing the terrorists to vote in our election. People make this argument about Spain all the time.

There are so many problems with this argument.

First and most important is that the terrorists DON'T CARE who runs our government. They hate us. They hate Republicans, they hate Democrats. They hate Ralph Nader. What is important in this regard is not what the terrorists want -- they want us dead -- it's what we can do about the people who aren't terrorists, yet.

Which leads to the second problem: If they do have an interest, why do we assume that it is in replacing George Bush? This is a completely simplistic way of looking at things. George Bush and his policies have probably been the best recruiting tool Islamic terrorists have ever had. This argument also assumes the ridiculous idea that if John Kerry wins, we'll suddenly just stop fighting terrorism, as if to say, "Oh, terrorism? We're okay with that now. It's really not so bad. Go ahead. Terrorize away."

Imagine this scenario: You're a young Muslim. You're on the fence about this "great satan" thing, though. America didn't used to seem all that bad, the freedom, the prosperity, the MTV -- but now, well, things just look so terrible in your home. People are dying all around you, there is no freedom to be seen, and now you see these liberators torturing prisoners. Your faith in America is likely to fade fast. All of these shouting, radical clerics may have a point about some of this stuff.

Now, Kerry wins the election, showing that the majority of Americans don't agree with Bush's policies either. Your faith in America and democracy is somewhat restored!

Or, Bush wins, telling you that the citizens of America are on the side of the policies of the past 4 years, the policies which have driven you to radicalism. Pass the AK-47.

I find this to be a credible scenario, and one I could imagine happening in thousands of people's minds.

Whether it happens or not, the point is that our election will certainly send a message to the rest of the world, but it is not a simple thing to determine what that message will be. Simply assuming that a vote for Bush is a vote against terrorism is ridiculously shortsighted.

We should be voting based on what we want our country to be, what values we feel it should stand for, not based on fear. Do we want our country to be one consumed with fear and distrust, greedy beyond measure, and unable to see past its own nose? One that holds the world to moral standards that it can't begin to live up to itself? Or do we want a country that can stand up to fear and terror, not just with our great weapons, but with our hearts and our minds? Fear is the absolute greatest weapon of the terrorist. If they attack again -- and they will -- our great challenge will be to stand by our beliefs and our principles and not abandon them in the face of danger. The challenge will be to remember what it is that we're supposed to be fighting for.

In a surprise move, the U.S. military announced today that they have banned the use of certain interrogation methods in Iraq.

It might have played a role? Or else, what, it's just a coincidence? Give me a break.

These were techniques for which "approval could be requested" but it never actually was requested, or at least never actually "approved." This sounds like a lot of doubletalk to me. If it was possible to get approval for these methods, that is certainly a tacit approval of the methods themselves, even if specific permission was never given in a specific case. This seems to strongly contradict what they've been saying, which is more along the lines of, "we had no idea anybody would do this kind of thing."

Sleep and sensory deprivation are one thing, but what the hell is "body stress positions" supposed to mean? That sure seems sufficiently vague to include just about anything.

Broom handle up your ass? It's a "body stress position."

Isn't it funny that the four issues he lists are all major Republican platforms? No support for euthanasia? What about the death penalty? That's okay? What about wars? Isn't "Thou shalt not kill" pretty clear? It's not "Thou shalt not kill unless thine president sayeth it's okay."

If there was any justice in this country when it comes to religion, the church would immediately have it's tax-exempt status investigated and hopefully revoked. This is unbelievable.

Of course, they have no way of knowing how people vote. Are they going to start requiring church goers to sign affidavits that they support certain politicians and do not support others in order to attend mass?

What about adultery? What about fornication? What about stealing and lying? What about clothing the poor? What about it being easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven?

There is no wiggle room, except for all the wiggle room there is when it comes to issues besides these four.

You know, I don't believe in any of this stuff, but sometimes I hope it's all true. I like to imagine that when these people die, they will be confronted with their staggering hypocrisy. You know, if god exists, he probably knows when you're being an asshole. You're not fooling anybody. You're going to get busted for this shit.

Appalling.

As mentioned before, the U.S. is falling behind the rest of the world in the sciences and other intellectual pursuits (but we're making great surges in hypocrisy!).

Take, for example, this video, via Boing Boing.

As I've mentioned before, The Onion has become redundant. Real life is becoming so ironic and nonsensical that there is just no need for their particular brand of adult-oriented satire.

The following quotes are from the Republican Party Platform, as stated at their 2000 convention. I'll throw in some sarcastic commentary as we go along, just to liven things up. I'll be in italics for your reading pleasure. Please hold your head-slapping until the end, if at all possible.

(Keep in mind that when they say "the administration," they're referring to Clinton.)

Un-be-fucking-lieva-fucking-ble.

Now, let's play compare and contrast a little with a couple quotes from the Democratic platform from the same year.

Quotes and links thanks to Matt Stoller, via Pandagon.

Wow. Wow wow wow wow.

Please read this (short) post from Josh Marshall. I'll wait.

Now, the most amazing thing about this -- aside from the fact that the president reads the sports page religiously but doesn't bother with the other parts of the newspaper, profoundly disturbing as that is -- is just what Josh detects: That the president deliberately shields himself from viewpoints other than his own. Under the guise of protecting himself from "liberal media bias," he is protected from reading things he disagrees with.

As Josh points out, we're all guilty to varying degrees of gravitating towards sources with which we agree. The vital difference, though, is that many of us see that as a weakness and wish we were better versed in the opposition's point of view. I know I do. Knowing the arguments and rationales of the right equips me to debate them. Avoiding them prevents me from challenging my opinions, and my position suffers as a result.

It is utterly appalling to me that our president freely admits to deliberately insulating himself from dissent. How can this be reality? Please, somebody pinch me.

A thesis study by a student at the University of Illinois finds that between September 12, 2001 and October 11, 2002, there were twenty-seven -- count 'em -- twenty-seven different rationales for war with Iraq floated the Bush administration, Congress and the media.

All but four of the rationales originated from the Bush White House.

Wow. With that many reasons to get rid of that guy, it's truly a wonder that the entire world wasn't just going NUTS to get in there and get him, isn't it? I mean, I can see not agreeing with one or two good rationales, but twenty-seven? The world community must really be out to lunch.

Or...

Someone was really desperate to find a reason -- any reason -- to start a war with Iraq and every time one of their reasons started to fall apart, they came up with a new one.

Which seems more likely to you?

N.B. -- this study only goes up to October of 2002. How many new reasons have we heard in the past 18 months? Saddam supports gay marriage! Saddam is running a child pornography ring! Saddam ate my daughter! He cut me off on I-5! He took a piss on the frickin' Lincoln Memorial for god's sake!

Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr., leaning against the wall and labeled as No. 1, identified four other soldiers in this photograph (Nos. 4, 5, 7 and 8) as military intelligence officers. No. 2 is a civilian translator.

Story

Do we still believe the story that this abuse was not directed by military intelligence?

Nick Berg's family has produced evidence which strongly contradicts what the U.S. government is saying about the few weeks leading up to his death.

Berg's family has claimed that Nick was held in U.S. custody for too long, without charges, and would have been out of the country if he had been released in a timely way. The government has denied this, saying that Nick was in the custody of the Iraqi police and not U.S. authorities. Today the family produced evidence.

This Reuters story has more, including this from Nick's father Michael:

In the past few days I've gotten into some heated comment thread debates (scroll waaaay down) over Nick's death and the proper response to it. The fact that the man's own father doesn't have a knee jerk "support the president" response goes a long way toward refuting their arguments. Meeting savagery with more savagery is not the only way, and the heightened emotions we all feel when we see something this brutal is not what should guide our country's policies. If we are ruled by rage, anger and fear, we are working from the same place as the terrorists are. We must be better than that.

While I can only assume that Neal would also tell me to shut up, I still think this is brilliant.

Read the rest.

Check out Media Matters' new ad on Rush Limbaugh's sickening ass.

Brad DeLong helpfully reprints Martin Wolf from the Financial Times (registration required).

I have nothing to add to this.

Eric Alterman reminds us of this unsettling piece from March.

It seems that there were at least three occasions when our government had solid intelligence as to Abu Musab Zarqawi's location, and that he was engaged in terrorist activities, but the White House refused to pull the trigger on all three occasions, fearing that it would undermine their argument for all out war in Iraq.

Zarqawi, you'll remember, has been wreaking havoc ever since, tied to more than 700 deaths in Iraq, and is blamed and possibly personally responsible for Nick Berg's brutal slaying.

Rushing to war with Iraq at all costs, the Bush administration on three separate occasions specifically refused to take out one of the most dangerous men on the planet.

What possible justification can there be for this? Wingnuts, wadda ya got? I'd love to hear someone try to defend this behavior.

Again, they decided not to take this monster out because it might have hurt their argument for war, despite his being one of the top targets in the war on terror. He is killing people to this day.

Impeach. Imprison.

The brutal killing of Nick Berg yesterday shocked and saddened all of us. Worse, though, it seems to have turned many of us into raving lunatics.

Witness this editorial in The New York Post today.

I don't know where to begin.

Of course I absolutely agree that there is no negotiating with the kinds of people who would do something like what happened to Nick Berg. They should be hunted down. The MAJOR problem with the above ranting is that stepping up our military operations in Iraq will not stop these people, it will surely increase their ranks. This simple-minded rush to violence plays directly into the terrorists hands, isn't that obvious? Does the editorial staff of the New York Post really believe that killing thousands and thousands of Iraqis is going to result in the "total annihilation of those who practice butchery and barbarism?" It's so ridiculous it makes me want to cry.

And what ever happened to foresight? To thinking beyond your immediate, emotional gut reactions? Are these people really prepared to stand behind the statement, "To hell with political sensitivities in the region?" Is it their view that if we ignore the region's history and people, and just kill as many of them as we can, things will just be okay? The world will sit back and say, "Well, that region did deserve to descend into chaos and civil war, dragging the hopes for peace around the world with it. After all, terrorists with no affiliation to any of those countries did kill that man from Philadelphia."

As Senator Lindsay Graham (R - Arizona) said recently, "When you are the good guys, you've got to act like the good guys."

We are not going to be judged based on our ideals if we can't live up to them. We will be judged on our actions, and our actions will rightly be seen to reflect our ideals. We can't have it both ways. We cannot promote democracy, freedom, and the rule of law by running around the world killing people because we're pissed off. The ability to restrain ourselves from going off half-cocked every time something terrible happens to one of our citizens is not a character flaw.

UPDATE :: Oops.. Lindsay Graham is from South Carolina, not Arizona. I always get those two confused. Oh, and it's Lindsey, not Lindsay. Crap.

On this day in 1974...

• The Celtics beat the Bucks for the NBA Championship
• Nixon was president, but not for long
• Billy, Don't Be a Hero, Kung Fu Fighting and The Streak fought for the top spot in the charts
• The minimum wage was $2.00/hr
• Connect Four, Monchichi, and the Rubik's Cube were the hot toys
• The Dow Jones average was 616

I share my birthday with Katherine Hepburn, Yogi Berra, George Carlin and Kim Fields (Tootie from "The Facts of Life"). And Homer Simpson.

So there it is. I'm 30. The big 3-0. It feels the same.

Rich Lowry of the National Review sees darker forces at work in the pictures from Abu Ghraib. The real culprit here is the "poison of America's civilian culture."

You see, these soldiers committed these vile acts -- and seemed to really enjoy doing it -- because they watch a lot of violent movies and probably look at tons of porn. If we were a proper Christian society, one assumes, things like this would never happen.

Ah! That must be it! How else could they have come up with the idea of taking photographs of naked people? Wow, I just can't think of any other way, either!

The feebleness of his argument is actually pretty impressive. If he had written this article on the moon in different circumstances, he might have seven eyelids and canned beets for dinner.

By his logic, as a society we should basically stop discussing anything, ever, because if it's acceptable to depict something in one context, or even to talk about it, there's always a risk that someone will do it at an inappropriate time, and we can't take that chance.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drive my car off a cliff. I can only assume I'll survive, or at least be freeze-framed like Thelma & Louise. This is gonna be so cool.

For a nice taste of what the leaders of our country are like, take a long, hard look at and listen to Senator James Inhofe, Republican from the great state of Crazier Than a Shithouse Rat.

John McCain reportedly walked out of the committee room while this asshole was spewing his "thoughts."

It's truly hard for me to fathom the hypocrisy displayed by these people. It truly strains my humanist leanings to contemplate their hearts and their minds.

Is it just me, or is it really embarrassing when Senators who are making pompous speeches about this or that issue can't even pronounce the words that are on everyone's lips?

It's Abu Ghraib. Ah-boo G-ray-b. (Actually, I suppose I should say that I don't speak Arabic, so I don't really know the exact pronounciation, but this is the way nearly everyone is saying it.) What it most certainly is not is Abu Grayboo, as I heard one Senator say today.

A quick post on my Great Thirtieth Birthday Cascade Loop Tour, then back to the politics, I promise.

Tomorrow, May 12, is my 30th birthday. Woo. To celebrate, Liz, my sister and I revived the Badunkadunk and went for a 3-day drive around the Northwest corner of Washington. They call it the Cascade Loop. We call it the, umm, uhh, we call it the Cascade Loop, too.

Departing Seattle Saturday morning, we had some coffee and breakfast sandwiches at Starbucks. Honestly, they're not nearly as good as McDonald's breakfast treats, but they're probably made with fewer anuses. It's a trade-off.

The Badunkadunk managed to scale the dizzying heights of Steven's Pass, and we arrived safely in the faux Bavarian village of Leavenworth, a town that remade itself as a Bavarian village for no other reason than to get people to stop there. Try the Bratwurst, it's delicious.

Coming out of the mountains, we descended onto the high, dry, lonely plains of central Washington. Living in Seattle, a veritable rain forest, it's easy to forget that an hour or two east is some of the driest, scrubbiest, sunniest land in the country. I forgot it myself.

Our destination for the day was Grand Coulee Dam. I'm a big fan of big things, particularly marvels of engineering and ingenuity and like that, and since it was my birthday trip, I got to decide. I quite enjoyed this, in the same way I'm sure to enjoy dragging my kids around to see giant buildings and Balls of Twine someday.

The town of Grand Coulee was having its annual "Colorama" festival, which consisted of a very small carnival with three rides and about 6 midway games. The scene was small town America at its finest, decked out in logoed sportswear and carrying a funnel cake in one hand and an ice-cream smeared child in the other. The teenagers cruised and looked tough, and we looked completely out of place. We tried and failed to win a stuffed animal, and that was that.

Saturday evening we experienced the Grand Coulee Dam laser light show, which I can safely say is the cheesiest thing I've ever seen.

On Sunday we headed back into the mountains. We found a beautiful campsite by the roaring Methow River and settled in for some beer drinking and campfire stoking. Dinner was cooked, wildlife was harassed, a good time was had.

Alas, on Monday we were forced to head back to the city, but not before a stop at Traxx for some high-speed indoor go-kart racing. Best average lap speed was Anthony's, while Liz posted the fastest lap overall. One accident, no injuries.

More photos from the weekend are here.

Offline for the weekend.

Happy Mother's Day, Mom.

The Washington Post has the transcript of the Senate Hearings, so here are some excerpts.

First, John McCain's questioning.

It doesn't come across in print quite as adversarial as it was live, but McCain was really grilling him. Rumsfeld in typical fashion never started his answers with an answer, always with qualifiers or side issues. McCain, to his enormous credit, just kept banging away at him.

McCain is a Republican, of course. Joe Lieberman is, he thinks, a Democrat.

What a jerk. You know what? Americans are not different. We're different than Osama bin Laden, sure, but we're not different from the average person in the Arab world, not in the way Joe is implying. Are we really so deluded and taken in by this kind of propaganda that we believe that when the bodies of those four contractors were burned and dismembered, everyone, or even a majority of average citizens in the Arab world had no problem with it?

I can't prove it, but I'd bet everything from a diddle-eye-joe to a damned-if-I-know that many, perhaps most, average citizens around the world found those acts unspeakable. The reason there wasn't a big public to-do about it is because those acts were not perpetrated by a military under the direction of a government. There is no Iraqi Insurgents Congress to have hearings about it. That doesn't mean that Arabs in general approved of it.

Lieberman's statements are disingenuous and just plain wrong. As someone pointed out in a comment thread somewhere else, it's as if he would like our slogan to be, "America. We're not as bad as bin Laden."

Finally, Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican from South Carolina elicits from Rumsfeld the statement that he would resign "in a minute" if he felt he was no longer effective:

When the videos and more pictures Rumsfeld referred to inevitably come out, this is only going to get worse. I'm not really on the "Impeach Rumsfeld" bandwagon just yet (not over this singly issue, anyway), but I'd be happy to see Joe Lieberman run out of town on a rail, along with anyone else who makes these moral comparisons between us and terrorists.

Personally, Senator, I hold myself, and my country, to a slightly higher standard.

The testimony in the House is starting now, but I don't know if I can sit through two Congressional Hearings in one day. Secretary Rumsfeld, of course, has to. In his face.

Though there was some partisan bullshit -- see Senator Sessions particularly -- I thought most of the questioning was good. Naturally the Democrats were generally harsher than the Republicans, but it was clear that the Republicans, the level-headed ones, had some serious questions about this issue.

More than likely, they're just trying to stay on the side of public opinion. Rumsfeld doesn't seem to have much support from anyone right now (Josh Marshall has a good breakdown of the anatomy of a political scandal), and they probably want to keep their distance in case he falls.

As for Rumsfeld, it was interesting to watch his demeanor change. At the start he was very apologetic, taking responsibility, he even seemed somewhat humble, if you can believe it. As the questioning continued, though, this thin veneer quickly fell away and the familiarly defensive, combative and arrogant Secretary of Defense emerged. In the end, I was certainly not left with the impression of someone trying to get to the bottom of horrible acts committed under his watch, but of someone desperately trying to save his own skin and the reputation of the administration.

Joe Lieberman used his five minutes to make a speech that started by saying that we never got apologies from the terrorists responsible for 9/11, or from the insurgents who killed and burned contractors in Fallujah. Once again, we hear people using some of the most despicable people on the face of the earth as a measuring stick for our own morality and responsibility.

There was still a little D next to Joe's name, but I think maybe he was being ironic.

Now we have Jeff Sessions, Republican Senator from Alabama, who has actually CUT OFF the answers of General Myers to make them stronger and less equivocal. Myers was being somewhat vague and general, Sessions interrupted him to expand his answer basically into, "Isn't it true, General, that you did everything you could possibly do and that you men sitting at that table are some of the bravest, most honorable people who have ever lived?"

John McCain is tearing these guys a new one.

His intense and unwavering questioning has forced Rumsfeld to drop his sorrowful and apologetic tone and reveal the angry, combative man beneath.

I can't transcribe it all, but I'll post it when a transcript comes out.

A little more on those demonstrators in the Committee Hearing.

I admire their tenacity, in a way, but I think it's a bit of a shame that they chose to do what they did.

People need to learn when things are going their way and let the process unfold. By yelling and screaming in a sober hearing, if anything they've made Rumsfeld look sympathetic. Hopefully the little event won't be highlighted by the mainstream media, but you can be sure that it will be trotted out by the right-wingers as further evidence of the lunacy of the left. They will be portrayed as shrill and disruptive, and many people will agree.

Having Rumsfeld testify before this committee, with calls for him to resign coming from all sides, is what they seem to want, so I can't understand why they choose to make further complaints during the proceedings. This is a habit I've seen over and over again in the activist left: When things start to go their way, they start to complain that it doesn't go far enough. We have to learn to recognize when we're winning on an issue, and stop yelling while the winning is going on.

When someone is being called to account at this level, it's simply not productive to yell and scream that they're not being called to account enough. If he steps down as Secretary of Defense, are they going to complain that he didn't step down for the right reasons?

I naturally support their right to voice their opinions, I just think it was the wrong time, the wrong place.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Richard Myers opening statement is decidedly more cold and detached than Rumsfeld's was. He has already begun to argue that attempting to get the media to keep these photographs under wraps was a tactical decision based on the situation in Fallujah at the time. He makes the point that the allegations were public, but they felt that releasing the photographs would further inflame an already tense situation in Iraq, putting more people at risk.

I have several problems with this argument. First, the allegations were only public in the very broadest sense. It was announced publicly that there was an investigation into some prisoner abuse, that was it. No one would have imagined anything like what we've been seeing for the past week.

Second, the basic problem with the "we had a good reason to cover it up for a while" argument is that it ignores what will happen when the pictures inevitably are released, and that the reaction then will be significantly worse precisely because they decided to keep them under wraps.

If we had been absolutely forthright and open about this from the very beginning, the "a few bad men" argument would have a much better footing. By covering it up, we've shown the world that our interest was not in justice or humane treatment, but in protecting ourselves and our reputation above all else.

It may be true that releasing the photographs during the siege of Fallujah would have made that situation worse, but keeping them hidden and releasing them now has made many other situations worse, and the delay is a large part of that.

This is a pattern with this administration -- they only do the right thing when it's absolutely the last option. They fight the creation of the 9/11 Commission until political pressure is so great that they cave; they then refuse to testify before that commission until pressure mounts and then they insist on setting ridiculous terms; they carefully refuse to apologize for these acts of torture, again until the pressure becomes too great.

Our reputation is going straight to hell for good reason. We're not displaying any of the qualities that we claim to believe in. As Rob Corddry put it so perfectly last night, the attitude is "don't judge us by our actions, judge us by our abstract notions." This is unrealistic and just wrong.

I'm reminded of a quote from Michael Ignatieff's piece in the New York Times Magazine last weekend:

Our current government seems to fundamentally miss this point, on just about every issue. They're all tactics, no strategy, and it's killing us.

Rumsfeld is testifying before the Armed Services Committee right now.

His opening statement, in part:

He goes on for a while, and then when he takes a breath, screaming is heard from the back of the chamber. A woman is yelling, "WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ABUSESIN IRAQ? WHAT ABOUT THE .. unintelligible ..., ARE YOU INVESTIGATING THAT? WHAT ABOUT THE ILLEGAL, MASS DETENTIONS?"

The cameras go to the back of the room and there are two rows of protestors holding sheets with "Fire Rumsfeld" and wearing shirts with similar slogans. The shouting goes on for a full minute or so as the security officers make their way to the protestors and politely escort them out as they chant "FIRE RUMSFELD -- WAR CRIMINAL -- FIRE RUMSFELD -- WAR CRIMINAL!"

Wow. Very dramatic. More like Vietnam every day.

As this happens, Rumsfeld just stops talking, and as the protestors leave, the chairman just says, "The Committee will resume the hearing." and off they go.

He goes on:

Once again, perfect satire from Rob Corddry:

Atrios points to this great post from Digby.

I'm finding it a bit hard to understand myself, Dig.

I'm not saying I'm going to do it, but it would be interesting to go back and dig up what these people had to say about the Lewinsky scandal, or Janet Jackson's tit, for god's sake. I would gamble that many of the people who are now trying to tell us that the abuse suffered by Iraqi prisoners at the hands of Americans is not such a big deal were foaming at the mouth over these issues. Maybe I will do it.

And listen, the calls for Rumsfeld to resign are probably premature, but depending on how this thing shakes out, it could be totally appropriate. It's not only about his ultimate responsibility for the actions of our soldiers in Iraq, it's not even mostly about that, it's about the fact that he failed to inform Congress or the president of these crimes before they broke in the military, the fact that he and others may very well have done their best to cover this up.

Sy Hersh has been all over the media saying that this is going to get much worse; that there are more photos and videotapes, and they're going to come out.

If these people really cared about the truth, if they really cared about America's reputation, morality, and legitimacy, they would be calling for full investigations, demanding that the truth be revealed, regardless of the consequences. Instead they're making excuses. In the end, they will stand alone.

According to a new Gallup poll, Bush's approval numbers are the lowest they've ever been.

The polls lately are all over the place, and it's hard to place much importance on them 6 months before the election anyway, but still, all of these indicators are the worst they've ever been for the president. I don't usually like to celebrate the failures of others, but I'll make an exception in this case. "Yay!"

Now what I'd love to see is Kerry take advantage of this time and really show some strength and some resolve. He needs to start addressing issues clearly and precisely. The president is doing a fine job of shooting himself in the foot, Kerry should take the opportunity to deal with the issues.

Bin Laden is offering 22 pounds of gold for the lives of Paul Bremer, Kofi Annan, or their deputies.

At today's prices, 22 pounds of gold is worth about $137,000. Meanwhile, the U.S. is offering $25 million for information leading to the capture of bin Laden.

If we're just going for bounty hunters, we got this bastard beat by a lot.

Take that, loser.

In a remarkable turnaround, president Bush has apologized for something.

Ain't that something?

Rummy, on the other hand, could only say on Good Morning America yesterday that he "felt apologetic." My god, can't you just say you're sorry? All this double-talk is just getting you in so much trouble.

There is a lot of speculation that Rumsfeld might resign. That would be interesting. He is scheduled to testify before Congress tomorrow, and the word on the street is that he has to give the performance of his life. Senators on both sides of the aisle are really pissed off.

The Economist is ever-subtle.

It is truly amazing how many people in this country seem to have the attitude that this cartoon by Jack Higgins of the Chicago Sun Times depicts.

It's really sad that people are trying to excuse the dispicable actions of some of our soldiers by comparing them to other terrible acts. How can they not realize what a slippery slope argument this is? If we compare the torture in Iraq's prisons to the horror of 9/11, how about minimizing that event by comparing it to the death camps of Nazi Germany? What about the genocide in Rwanda? Or the Black Death, I hear that was pretty awful. Is it really Higgins' position that since we suffered an attack on 9/11, all bets are off? We are now free to engage in any kind of behavior we like, using that tragic day as an excuse. It's sickening.

The simple point is that if we excuse our evil deeds by saying that they're not as evil as some other, unrelated deeds, we cannot be said to have any standards whatsoever. Morality would be based entirely on what the other guy did first, in a never ending race to the bottom. (It should be noted that this cartoon compares acts which, and I can't stress this enough, have no relationship. IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SEPTEMBER 11.)

Just to be clear, one more time:

Any suggestion otherwise is not only irresponsible in the extreme, it fans the flames of attitudes which put our country, our soldiers and our citizens in more and more danger every day.

This is getting really weird.

At the State Department's daily press conference today (transcript | audio | video), spokesman Richard Boucher spent the first 10 minutes or so answering questions about Wil Hylton's GQ article.

When pressed, he said that he does believe that the Wilkerson interview was supposed to be on background, and he accuses Hylton of "breaking the ground rules" of the interview. The story I'm getting from Wil is that it was absolutely, explicitly on the record, and that Wilkerson knew it. He reports that Wilkerson said things like "I should be careful about what I say," which clearly indicates he knew he was on the record.

Beyond the issue of on the record/off the record, Boucher does not deny that any of the quotes and sentiments attributed to Powell's senior staff are untrue. Over and over again, he says that we should judge the Secretary by his words and his actions, and not by descriptions of his state of mind by other people.

Many variations on this theme:

Uhhh, what? I completely disagree. While we should naturally take someone's description of another's state of mind with a grain of salt, when it comes to people in positions of extreme power, it's ridiculous to assume that they are "telling it like it is." They are extremely careful with their words. It is very useful to get descriptions of their state of mind from those very close to them.

If Powell were to say publicly that he is tired, unhappy and ready to quit, the administration could very well collapse. At the very least, he'd start a major story that couldn't be other than damaging to the president, particularly as he seeks reelection. To my mind, Hylton's story that Powell's aides were pushed forward as unofficial surrogates to say things that Powell himself could not say makes good sense.

It certainly makes more sense than a reporter risking his career by attributing off the record remarks to high-level government officials. It's a question of motivation. The motivation on the part of the Secretary and his staff is easy to see, the motivation to make this up on the part of Hylton is not. And I'm not just saying that because he's my friend. It just doesn't follow.

Basically, in the end, it seems that they're trying to have it both ways. They are admitting that staff were told, by the Secretary, to "tell it like it is," but now that it's been told, they don't want to admit that it's true and they're confusing the issue with this on the record/off the record argument.

So were they telling it like it is or not? Boucher never denies that they were.

There is sure to be more to this story. Apparently Glen Kessler is going to have something about it in the Washington Post tomorow. Stay tuned.

Atrios points to Jim Henley's post on House Resolution 2885, otherwise known as the Protecting Children from Peer-to-Peer Pornography Act of 2003.

The part Henley excerpts is:

When I first read this, I was shocked too. By their definition of peer-to-peer, it almost seems like this law would ban computers connecting to each other in any way.

Ahh, but then I read on. The important part of the excerpt above is the last clause, "in a manner that violates the regulations prescribed under subsection (b)(2)." The law doesn't seek to ban P2P software outright, only if it violates the provisions of subsection (b)(2). So the real issue is what does subsection (b)(2) have to say.

By my reading, this is no big deal, and possibly a good idea. It seems to be mostly concerned with P2P software being distributed as "spyware" without the users permission and requiring some bits of disclosure on the software on what it may be used for. In other words, it would be a crime for people to secretly install this software on your machine without your knowledge and use it as a node in a child pornography ring.

Conclusion: False Alarm.

Post Script: I still really think they shouldn't be allowed to give laws these damn propagandistic names. Just call it H.R. 2885 and explain what it does. Calling it the "Protecting Children from Peer-to-Peer Pornography Act of 2003" is like an ad campaign for the law, with all the problems of any other ad campaign, namely that it appeals to the base emotions and not the intellect.

Submitted for your disgust, Rush Limbaugh.

A caller compared the torture at Abu Ghraib to a college fraternity prank, Rush responds (via Pandagon):

The most popular radio host in the country, ladies and gentlemen. I'm really at a loss for words.

Just to make things crystal clear, here's a list of things these people did and are alleged to have done, to "blow some steam off:"

• Punching, slapping, and kicking detainees; jumping on their naked feet
• Videotaping and photographing naked male and female detainees
• Forcibly arranging detainees in various sexually explicit positions for photographing
• Forcing detainees to remove their clothing and keeping them naked for several days at a time
• Forcing naked male detainees to wear women's underwear
• Forcing groups of male detainees to masturbate themselves while being photographed and videotaped
• Arranging naked male detainees in a pile and then jumping on them
• Positioning a naked detainee on a MRE Box, with a sandbag on his head, and attaching wires to his fingers, toes, and penis to simulate electric torture
• Writing "I am a Rapest" (sic) on the leg of a detainee alleged to have forcibly raped a 15-year old fellow detainee, and then photographing him naked
• Placing a dog chain or strap around a naked detainee's neck and having a female Soldier pose for a picture
• A male MP guard having sex with a female detainee
• Using military working dogs (without muzzles) to intimidate and frighten detainees, and in at least one case biting and severely injuring a detainee
• Taking photographs of dead Iraqi detainees
• Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees
• Threatening detainees with a charged 9mm pistol
• Pouring cold water on naked detainees
• Beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair
• Threatening male detainees with rape
• Allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell
• Sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick
• Using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee

(From the Taguba Report)

Rush's take on this, again:

You know, I'm sort of feeling like I need some emotional release myself. Feeling a little stressed out. Maybe I should go down to Rush's house and sodomize him with a chemical light. You know, just to blow off some steam. Come on, I just wanna have a good time!

In the Washington Post today, George Will, of all people, has a pretty scathing column on the Bush administration. It gives me hope that the facade of legitimacy on this administration is starting to wear too thin for many true conservative. They recognize that this administration is not conservative. They're.. well, they're just nuts.

Well said, George.

Beyond what we've already seen from Abu Ghraib prison, there is new information that some Iraqi prisoners were actually killed while in custody there.

Reduced in rank and dismissed from the Army?!?! For murder? What the fuck is that?

It makes no sense to me that the punishments for committing such an act while in a military uniform should be less severe than it is for a civilian. It should be more severe. Particularly when the person killed is a prisoner of the killer, a situation of such power inequality that no harsh treatment at all is permitted.

A few more points:

Information extracted from prisoners under torture and humiliation is notoriously unreliable. Just because they suddenly admit something under these conditions doesn't mean it's true. They will tell you anything you want to hear. This is basic stuff. Why do our interrogators in Iraq not know this?

The defense being mounted by some of the soldiers is that they were just following orders. I agree that responsibility should extend -- not shift -- higher up the chain of command, but I have one basic question: If they were only doing this because they were ordered to, why were they enjoying it so much? Pictures of people laughing and giving the thumbs up don't exactly give the impression of duress.

Bush is going to appear on Arab TV to try to defuse the prisoner abuse story. He iwll do two 10-minute interviews with Al-Hurra and Al-Arabiya.

It's probably a good idea; a good gesture, but I doubt it will change much. Just about half of the people in this country don't trust the man, it's hard to believe that almost anyone in the Arab world does.

The A.P. has picked up Wil Hylton's GQ article, and more importantly, they got confirmation from Harlan Ullman of his statements in the article and that Powell had authorized him to cooperate with the magazine.

This confirmation from Ullman goes a long way. The important thing in this story is not what Powell himself said to Hylton, which was basically nothing, but what his close friends, aides and deputies said about him, with Powell's full knowledge.

MSNBC has posted the full text of the "Taguba Report" on abuse and torture in American run prisons in Iraq, completed in February.

I haven't read it yet, but I'll try to get to it this evening. Kevin Drum suggests someone send a copy to Donald Rumsfeld, General Myers, and George Bush.

Speaking of Rumsfeld, dig this unbelievable quote from that jerk:

It's simply astounding that he would sit there and equivocate over what the meaning of "torture" is, when the U.S. faces an international crises of legitimacy like this. Don't they realize that the only way to even begin to fix the damage is to stop being fucking politicians and be humans for a minute? It really and truly boggles the mind.

From his interview in Salon.

The problem is that so many people think that it is their party, when it's not. The policies of the GOP and the Bush administration in particular continually screw them, but they're convinced for some reason -- sometimes just out of habit -- that they are Republicans.

I was confronted with this first hand at a party on Friday night. I was wearing my Democrats shirt -- I try to wear it whenever I go out -- but found myself in a small sea of young, successful Republicans, or so they thought. There was a lot of "I'm a social liberal, an environmental liberal, a domestic policy liberal, but I'm fiscally conservative and I'm with the president on foreign policy."

I simply cannot fathom this point of view. They agree with the president on maybe 20% of his agenda, yet they'll still vote for him. They'll still vote for him if it means he'll try to codify persecution of their gay friends; they'll still vote for him even though they know he's poisoning their air and water; they'll vote for him, claiming that they are fiscal conservatives, even though he's racked up the biggest deficit in history; they'll vote for him because they're afraid of terrorists, ignoring the fact that his foreign policy has undoubtedly created more terrorists while isolating us from our friends.

I have a secret hope that many Republicans with brains are embarrassed to be associated with this president. They're also embarrassed to admit that they were wrong about him. But maybe come November, they'll do the right thing.

This whole episode is really fascinating to me, having been aware of the gist of it since before the article was released, and now watching a friend get put through the media wringer in real time.

I just watched Wil's appearance on MSNBC, during which he reiterated and stood by everything in his article. There seemed to be a good deal of surprise on the part of the MSNBC anchor that all this was on the record. They kept referring to the article as "explosive."

The best quote from the article concerns the public face of the relationship between Colin Powell and Cheney:

This is the first time I've seen it put so plainly. Of course politicians say that they're on "good terms" and "congenial" with each other. But as Ullman said, all it means is that they don't call each other a bitchass whenever they see each other. They're politicians and diplomats and they generally don't say anything they don't want to see on the front page of the New York Times.

Which is what makes this article so fascinating. Powell himself didn't say anything, but Hylton makes it very clear that his close aides could be said to be speaking for him. Powell was briefed on the conversations Hylton had with his aides before his own interview took place, and he still gave the interview. This is quite telling. If there had been a problem with what was being said, the damage control and backpedaling would have started right then.

If and when I get the transcript of the Wilkerson interview, I'll post it right away.

It seems that Powell's people are now trying to distance themselves from Wil Hylton's GQ article, claiming they didn't know the interviews would be on the record, despite a tape recorder whirring away on the table.

More to the point, what difference does it make? Are they saying that they weren't telling the truth because they thought they were off the record? That seems a bit backwards. If there was a misunderstanding about the nature of the interviews, fine, but once again they're not addressing the issues or substance brought up by the article. If they would have told a different story had they known they were on the record, that's just too bad, their words are out there now, and saying you didn't know you would be quoted doesn't get you off the hook.

Wil will be on Lester Holt's show on MSNBC this afternoon and Paula Zahn's on CNN this evening. Shoud be interesting. He has also indicated that he may give me a complete transcript of the Wilkerson interview.

Stay tuned.

My friend Wil S. Hylton has a new piece in GQ today backing up a lot of Bob Woodward's assertions from Plan of Attack concerning the huge divide between the State Department and the rest of the cabinet, particularly the Vice President's office and the Pentagon.

Hylton conducted on-the-record interviews with Powell, Rice, Powell's chief of staff Larry Wilkerson and others and deftly points out the contradictions between their stories. Particularly interesting are the conversations with Powell, who carefully says a whole lot of nothing -- ending his interview with the line "You didn't get as much substance as you might have wanted." -- and Wilkerson, whom Hylton is assured by several staffers is "of a single brain" with Powell. It's a clever little bit of deniability, to have Wilkerson present the facts much more candidly, and to ensure that the reporter has the idea that he basically speaks for Powell.

Hylton describes his interview with Rice:

Go read the whole piece.

Once again, The Daily Show manages to say it all in one or two sentences.

In his little segment/parody of last week's Nightline controversy, Rob Corddry had this little gem:

Besides being hilarious, this neatly sums up what the position of many right-wingers, including the administration, is quickly becoming. Inconvenient facts are treated as propoganda and either ignored, distorted, or covered up, and then quickly replaced with substantive dialog about how John Kerry fell off a bike.

So, to sum up: An administration official won't allow a subordinate to deliver his accurate cost estimates of a controversial bill to Congress before they vote. Republicans on the oversight committee refuse to issue subpoenas to get to the bottom of it, so Democrats have to call for an independent investigation. The investigation reveals a likely breach of specific and long-standing federal laws.

Also note that this vote was extremely controversial, with Republicans holding the voting open nearly all night to strong arm the necessary votes. If the correct estimates had been available to them, it is not a stretch to say the bill wouldn't have had a chance. (see this Nightline report, which I wrote about here)

So, Rep. Bill Thomas, R-Calif, we're waiting. Let's see some subpoenas.

I had no idea that Kirk Cameron -- Mike Seaver from Growing Pains -- was a totally far out super-duper Evangelical Mega Christian with his own TV show and a fancy pants website. Did you?

Check it out.

I took some of their tests and quizzes, and unfortunately, it appears that I'm going to hell. Unless, of course, I buy the $60 "Way of the Master Foundation Course." Hmmm... Maybe...

Nah, I think I'll stick with eternal damnation.

Ugh. This kind of thing really makes me mad.

No More Mister Nice Blog points to this article in the New York Times about the Governor of New Jersey, a Democrat, being threatened with the denial of communion because of his position on abortion rights.

Note that this is his political position on abortion rights, not his personal position on the morality of abortion. This is a vital difference, or at least it would be if our political system was as it should be.

Also in the article is this mention of John Kerry:

NMMNB points out that in each of the past three years (as far back as he checked) Republican Pro-Choice Catholics and Democrat Pro-Choice non-Catholics have attended this dinner. Examples: Rudy Guliani, George Pataki, Hillary Clinton, Colin Powell, Chuck Schumer.

Only Pataki and Guliani are both Catholic and Pro-Choice, but they're Republicans so the issue was never raised.

The typical excuse for this is "they're not running for President" and therefore are not subject to as much scrutiny. Right, this is obvious by the intense scrutiny the church placed George Bush under when he was running for President.

The other obvious flaw with their position is that they have singled out abortion rights as the one true test of someone's Catholicism, while conveniently ignoring popular Republican positions like the death penalty, social justice, and like that.

As a non-religious person, this kind of thing offends me more than I can explain. I would find it no more offensive if we were suddenly seeking approval of our politicians from the "Church" of Scientology.

All of these organizations should lose their tax-exempt status. It's just ridiculous.

The Kerry campaign has released a new set of ads today, with the tagline, "A Lifetime of Service and Strength."

I think the ads are great. They take the Republican criticisms of Kerry head on and deftly use them to his advantage. He acknowledges his "privileged upbringing," and says that it reinforced his commitment to service. This is in sharp contrast to Bush, who goes to great lengths to pretend he doesn't come from one of the most powerful and privileged families in America.

They also wisely frame Kerry's stance against Vietnam when he returned as a determination to stop that war, not undermine it. This has the advantage of being true. While some antiwar protestors in the 60s had questionable motives and tactics, Kerry used established channels to communicate his belief that the war was wrong and that no more men should die for it. He could never be accused of not supporting his fellow soldiers, he was trying to bring them all home.

Anyway, watch the ads.

UPDATE :: Also out recently is John F. Kerry: The Complete Biography: By the Boston Globe Reporters Who Know Him Best, which promises to be a thorough and unbiased look at the Man Who Would Be President.

Bush styles himself as "the CEO President." Kevin Drum has a great post on Bush's job performance, concluding that Bush has vision and determination, but lacks the skills to get the job done.

Exactly right.

As we've seen with many other CEOs of his stripe in recent years, these people tend to fail, and fail spectacularly. Their inability to accept hard truths and their single-minded focus on their own instincts at the expense of reality ultimately leads to a crash.

The tragedy is that while the failures of ordinary CEOs may cost us millions and millions of dollars and many people their jobs, the failures of this one have cost thousands of people their lives and much of our civilization's progress towards a stable and secure future.

The A.P. reports that six more U.S. soldiers, all officers and non-coms, have "received the most severe level of administrative reprimand in the U.S. military." A seventh was given "a more lenient admonishment."

Administrative reprimands? Admonishment? I'm sure that will really quell the rage in the Arab world over this torture. "Don't worry, everyone, we've reprimanded them. They feel really bad, and they said they were sorry."

General Karpinski claimed on Good Morning America that she didn't know anything about the abuse, and that if she had known, she "certainly would have reacted very quickly."

So the story that's emerging is that these are individual criminal acts, not connected to anything else.

Frankly, it's bullshit.

The soldiers who committed these acts can't even spell the word "rapist" when they scrawl it on a prisoner's skin, and we're now giving them credit for knowing the most effective ways to humiliate Muslim men. This wasn't random cruelty, these acts are very specific and devastating to Muslims. Nudity is completely humiliating and shameful for Muslim men, particularly when in front of other men. These acts were specifically designed to break these people down, and I don't believe for a second that the mental defectives we've seen in these photographs thought it up on their own.

I realize that the military has its own forms of punishment, and that these "administrative reprimands" will end careers, but I don't think it's nearly enough. If these kinds of acts were committed in the civilian world, there would certainly be criminal charges, and this should be no different. If anything, we should hold our military to a higher standard when it is engaged around the world, particularly if we are surrounding that engagement with the rhetoric of Freedom and Democracy.

Again, what would be our reaction if the tables were turned? If Americans were treated this way and then we were assured that those responsible had been "reprimanded," would we feel that justice had been done? Certainly not.

If we intend to spread our morality and philosophy around the globe (and I'm not necessarily advocating that we should), we must first make sure that we can hold ourselves to the standards we pretend to believe in.

When you stare into the abyss, the abyss also stares into you.

Via Liberal Oasis:

On Fox News Sunday today Chris Wallace had this to say in response to Nightline's program Friday night, "The Fallen."

Is it possible to imagine that Fox will explain to us "what they [the soldiers] went halfway around the world to do" in an unbiased way? Unless they stick to empty truisms like, "they went to oust Saddam," and "they went to disarm him," or "they went to find WMD," it's pretty doubtful.

Instead, their explanation will no doubt be filled with words like Freedom, Democracy, Liberate, Evil, Terror, and Rape Room.

What Nightline did was simple and unadorned. There was no spin, just names and pictures. It was very moving. It didn't support the war and it didn't denounce it, it simply honored those who have died fighting it.

As Koppel said at the end of it (I'm paraphrasing), if you support the war, your reaction will be something like "these soldiers will not have died in vain, we will finish our mission." If you don't support the war, your reaction was probably something like "no more should die for an unjust cause."

Reciting partisan talking points about what good the war has accomplished is not "providing context," it's providing spin. Fox News wouldn't know honor and tribute if they bit them in the ass.

My guess is he woke up with a camel head in his bed.

On Friday some quotes Iraq Administrator Paul Bremer made in 2001 were widely circulated. His statements that the Bush administration was dropping the ball on terrorism were direct and unequivocal. He was also in a position to know, having just chaired the National Commission on Terrorism, a bipartisan body formed by the Clinton administration to examine U.S. counterterrorism policies.

Damn, that's quite a change in perspective, huh? I mean, wow.

There is also, naturally, the obligatory swipe at the Clinton administration -- the administration that formed the Commission he chaired.

Of course, his statements weren't regarding the previous 7 months, they were about what Bush had done since he took office. He said they "seem to be paying no attention to terrorism." Now he says he was referring to the previous 7 months, and apparently had meant to say Clinton administration when he said "new administration."

Remember, it's not a lie. He misspoke.

The new Iraqi security force, under the command of one of Saddam's Generals, Jassim Mohammed Saleh, hasn't really been seen around Fallujah.

The military seems to be giving mixed messages about whether or not this force will really be in charge in Fallujah, and whether or not Saleh will be in charge. First they said he was, now they say he's not.

Saleh is also apparently saying that there "are no foreign fighters in Fallujah," in direct contradiction to coalition intelligence.

In a truly weird statement, a "senior official" of the occupation authority said that the decision to put Saleh in charge was made from the "bottom up."

What?? The decision to place a former General in Saddam's elite Republican Guard in charge of the security force around the most dangerous city in Iraq was made on the ground? Are we seriously supposed to believe that senior military and civilian officials weren't involved in this decision? What do you supposed they were talking about last weekend, then?

Jeez, even the good news out of Iraq is always actually bad news.

More good news.

Naturally, I would never begrudge other countries their scientific achievements, and part of this shift is certainly due to better education and more opportunity around the world. Still, it seems to me a sympton of our complacency and completely screwed up priorities that we're starting to fall behind. We spend less and less on science, education, and the arts and more and more on unnecessary wars, fuel-inefficient cars, weight-loss surgery, and boner pills.

I'm sure many scientists would argue that America still produces a great number of brilliant innovations, but it's hard to not feel like we've lost our edge. Remember, all empires fall. This one is really showing some warning signs.

In an article in next week's New Yorker (online now), Seymour Hersh describes a February Army report on the abuses at Iraqi prisons.

The report includes accounts even worse than those we've already heard and seen graphic evidence of, including sodomy with chemical light sticks and broom handles, forced masturbation, and the use of attack dogs.

It's certainly worth reading the entire article, but here's the conclusion:

The New York Times now has the first public comments from Brig. General Janis Karpinski, who commanded the Military Police Brigade and oversaw the military prison system in Iraq. She has been relieved of duty and is back home in South Carolina, making excuses.

I do not doubt that Military Intelligence encouraged these acts. It is also possible that, as Karpinksi says, the Army may be trying to shift the blame to her and other reservists and away from intelligence officers still in Iraq. This does not diminish her responsibility or that of the soldiers already involved. She is a General; she is responsible for what goes on under her command. If she would like to bring to light the wrongdoing of others and see that they suffer the punishment that they deserve, fine. They should be punished and it serves us all to find out how deep this problem is. But if her goal and the goal of others under investigation is to reduce their own culpability, to pass off responsibility for these horrific crimes, it's just another sign that they are truly despicable people.

We need only think for a moment about what our reaction to these stories would be if the situation were reversed to understand that there is simply no excuse for this.

And here come the excuses.

From an article in the Baltimore Sun yesterday.

No. No no no no no. No excuses. No matter how these prisoners may have been behaving, this is not acceptable treatment of a human being. Stacking people naked in a pyramid, and taking photographs of yourself smiling and giving a thumbs-up will never qualify as "maintaining discipline."

As for the ridiculous notion that these are "stupid, kid things and pranks," it makes my blood boil. This is not a fraternity hazing ritual, this IS A WAR.

As for the Geneva Conventions, it's really not the point. The standards we should be applying here are not international law but human decency.

British troops are now also being accused of similar crimes.

At least, in England, it's front page news. Here in the U.S., the story has been largely buried on page 10. And the photographs have been hard to find until very recently.

If we really wanted to show the Arab world that this is not representative of us, that it is an aberration, we would be making a huge show of condemning it in the strongest possible terms, as the British are doing. Our tendency to make excuses and apply glaring double standards is going to bite us in the ass in a most terrible way.