BartBlog

The New York Times, April 15, 2007

Familiar as I am with the warp speed of media, I was still taken aback by the velocity of Don Imus’s fall after he uttered an indefensible racist and sexist slur about the Rutgers women’s basketball team. Even in that short span, there’s been an astounding display of hypocrisy, sanctimony and self-congratulation from nearly every side of the debate, starting with Al Sharpton, who has yet to apologize for his leading role in the Tawana Brawley case, the 1980s racial melee prompted by unproven charges much like those that soiled the Duke lacrosse players.

It’s possible that the only people in this whole sorry story who are not hypocrites are the Rutgers teammates and their coach, C. Vivian Stringer. And perhaps even Don Imus himself, who, while talking way too much about black people he has known and ill children he has helped, took full responsibility for his own catastrophic remarks and didn’t try to blame the ensuing media lynching on the press, bloggers or YouTube. Unlike Mel Gibson, Michael Richards and Isaiah Washington, to take just three entertainers who have recently delivered loud religious, racial or sexual slurs, Imus didn’t hire a P.R. crisis manager and ostentatiously enter rehab or undergo psychiatric counseling. “I dished it out for a long time,” he said on his show last week, “and now it’s my time to take it.”

Among the hypocrites surrounding Imus, I’ll include myself. I’ve been a guest on his show many times since he first invited me in the early 1990s, when I was a theater critic. I’ve almost always considered him among the smarter and more authentic conversationalists I’ve encountered as an interviewee. As a book author, I could always use the publicity.

Of course I was aware of many of his obnoxious comments about minority groups, including my own, Jews. Sometimes he aimed invective at me personally. I wasn’t seriously bothered by much of it, even when it was unfunny or made me wince, because I saw him as equally offensive to everyone. The show’s crudest interludes struck me as burlesque.

I do not know Imus off the air and have no idea whether he is a good person, any more than I know whether Jerry Lewis, another entertainer who raises millions for sick children, is a good person. But as a listener and sometime guest, I didn’t judge Imus to be a bigot. Perhaps I felt this way in part because Imus vehemently inveighed against racism in real life, most recently in decrying the political ads in last year’s Senate campaign linking a black Tennessee congressman, Harold Ford, to white women. Perhaps I gave Imus a pass because the insults were almost always aimed at people in the public eye, whether politicians, celebrities or journalists — targets with the forums to defend themselves.

Read More Here

The New York Times, April 14, 2007

WASHINGTON – Usually, spring in Washington finds us caught up in the cherry blossoms and the ursine courtship rituals of the pandas.

But this chilly April, we are forced to contemplate the batrachian grapplings of Paul Wolfowitz, the man who cherry-picked intelligence to sell us a war with Iraq.

You will not be surprised to learn, gentle readers, that Wolfie in love is no less deceptive and bumbling than Wolfie at war.

Proving he is more con than neo, he confessed that he had not been candid with his staff at the World Bank. While he was acting holier than thou, demanding incorruptibility from poor countries desperate for loans, he was enriching his girlfriend with tax-free ducats.

He has yet to admit any real mistakes with the hellish war that claimed five more American soldiers yesterday, as stunned Baghdad residents dealt with bombings of the Iraqi Parliament, where body parts flew, and of a bridge over the Tigris, where cars sank.

But he admitted Thursday that he’d made a mistake when he got his sweetheart, Shaha Ali Riza, an Arab feminist who shares his passion for democratizing the Middle East, a raise to $193,590 — more than the taxpaying (and taxing) Condi Rice makes. No doubt it seemed like small change compared with the money pit of remaking Iraq — a task he once prophesied would be paid for with Iraqi oil money. Maybe he should have remunerated his girlfriend with Iraqi oil revenues, instead of ripping off the bank to advance his romantic agenda.

No one is satisfied with his apology. Not the World Bank employees who booed Wolfie and yelled, “Resign! Resign!” in the bank lobby.

Not Alison Cave, the chairwoman of the bank’s staff association, who said that Mr. Wolfowitz must “act honorably and resign.”

Read More Here

Bill Maher, Salon, April 13, 2007

Say it loud: I’m elite and proud! The right-wing crusade to demonize elites has paid off. Now the country’s run by incompetents who make mediocrity a job requirement and recruit from Pat Robertson’s law school. New rule: Now that liberals have taken back the word liberal, they also have to take back the word “elite.” By now you’ve heard the constant right-wing attacks on the “elite,” or as it’s otherwise known, “hating.” They’ve had it up to their red necks with the “elite media.” The “liberal elite.” Who may or may not be part of the “Washington elite.” A subset of the “East Coast elite.” Which is influenced by “the Hollywood elite.” So basically, unless you’re a shitkicker from Kansas, you’re with the terrorists. If you played a drinking game in which you did a shot every time Rush Limbaugh attacked someone for being “elite” you’d almost be as wasted as Rush Limbaugh.

I don’t get it: In other fields — outside of government — elite is a good thing, like an elite fighting force. Tiger Woods is an elite golfer. If I need brain surgery, I’d like an elite doctor. But in politics, elite is bad — the elite aren’t down-to-earth and accessible like you and me and President Shit-for-Brains. But when the anti-elite crowd demonizes the elite, what they’re actually doing is embracing incompetence. Now, I know what you’re thinking: That doesn’t sound like our president — ignoring intelligence.

You know how whenever there’s a major Bush administration scandal it always traces back to some incompetent political hack appointment and you think to yourself, “Where are they getting these screw-ups from?” Well, now we know: from Pat Robertson. I wish I were kidding, but I’m not. Take Monica Goodling, who before she resigned last week because of the U.S. attorneys scandal, was the third most powerful official in the Justice Department of the United States. Thirty-three, and though she had never even worked as a prosecutor, she was tasked with overseeing the job performance of all 95 U.S. attorneys. How do you get to be such a top dog at 33? By acing Harvard, or winning scholarship prizes? No, Goodling did her undergraduate work at Messiah College — home of the “Fighting Christies,” who wait-listed me, the bastards — and then went on to attend Pat Robertson’s law school.

Read More Here

The New York Times, April 13, 2007

In 1981, Gary North, a leader of the Christian Reconstructionist movement – the openly theocratic wing of the Christian right – suggested that the movement could achieve power by stealth. “Christians must begin to organize politically within the present party structure,” he wrote, “and they must begin to infiltrate the existing institutional order.”

Today, Regent University, founded by the televangelist Pat Robertson to provide “Christian leadership to change the world,” boasts that it has 150 graduates working in the Bush administration.

Unfortunately for the image of the school, where Mr. Robertson is chancellor and president, the most famous of those graduates is Monica Goodling, a product of the university’s law school. She’s the former top aide to Alberto Gonzales who appears central to the scandal of the fired U.S. attorneys and has declared that she will take the Fifth rather than testify to Congress on the matter.

The infiltration of the federal government by large numbers of people seeking to impose a religious agenda – which is very different from simply being people of faith – is one of the most important stories of the last six years. It’s also a story that tends to go underreported, perhaps because journalists are afraid of sounding like conspiracy theorists.

But this conspiracy is no theory. The official platform of the Texas Republican Party pledges to “dispel the myth of the separation of church and state.” And the Texas Republicans now running the country are doing their best to fulfill that pledge.

Kay Cole James, who had extensive connections to the religious right and was the dean of Regent’s government school, was the federal government’s chief personnel officer from 2001 to 2005. (Curious fact: she then took a job with Mitchell Wade, the businessman who bribed Representative Randy “Duke” Cunningham.) And it’s clear that unqualified people were hired throughout the administration because of their religious connections.

Read More Here

Sidney Blumenthal, Salon, April 12, 2007

On Jan. 26, J. Scott Jennings, the White House deputy political director working for Karl Rove, delivered a PowerPoint presentation to least 40 political appointees, many participating through teleconferencing, at the General Services Administration, which oversees a $60 billion budget to manage federal properties and procure office equipment. Jennings’ lecture featured maps of Republican “targets” for the House of Representatives and the Senate in the 2008 election. His talk was one of perhaps dozens given since 2001 to political appointees in departments and agencies throughout the federal government by him, Rove and Ken Mehlman, the former White House political director and Republican National Committee chairman. Rove and Co. drilled polling data into the government employees and lashed them on the necessity of using federal resources for Republican victory. “Such intense regular communication from the political office had never occurred before,” Los Angeles Times reporters Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten wrote in their book, “One Party Country: The Republican Plan for Dominance in the 21st Century.”

At the GSA presentation, the agency’s chief, Lurita Alexis Doan, according to a witness, demanded of her employees, “How can we use GSA to help our candidates in the next election?” But when the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on March 28, Doan’s short-term memory loss grew progressively worse as she spoke. “There were cookies on the table,” she said. “I remember coming in late — honestly, I don’t even remember that.” At a break, she ordered an assistant to remove her water glass, unaware that the microphone in front of her was still on. “I don’t want them to have my fingerprints,” she said. “They’ve got me totally paranoid!”

The Oversight Committee is investigating multiple charges against Doan — her attempt to grant a no-bid contract to a friend; her effort to thwart contract audits and to cut funds of the GSA Office of the Inspector General, which she called “terrorists” after it began a probe into her conduct; and her potential violation of the Hatch Act, which forbids the use of government offices for partisan activity. A major Republican contributor who made a fortune as a military and homeland security contractor, Doan had held no previous government posts before being appointed last year to head the GSA. Like the fabled (“heck of a job, Brownie”) Michael Brown, the former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Doan is another stellar example of the culture of cronyism that has permeated the federal government under George W. Bush.

But Doan’s instant incompetence and wackiness under pressure disclose more than the price of patronage. “To the victor belong the spoils” has been the rule since Andrew Jackson. And every administration has displayed cases of abuse. But the Bush administration’s practices are more than the common and predictable problems with patronage. Bush has not simply filled jobs with favorites, oblivious to their underhanded dealings, as though he were a blithering latter-day version of Warren Harding. Bush has been determined to turn the entire federal government, every department and agency, into an instrument of a one-party state. From the GSA scandal to the purging of U.S. attorneys, Bush has engaged in a conscious, planned and systematic assault on the professional standards of career staff, either subordinating them or replacing them with ideologues.

Read More Here

Maureen Dowd, The New York Times, April 11, 2007

Washington – The mind reels at the mind.

The Times’s science section devoted itself yesterday to the topic of Desire, the myriad ways in which the human mind causes the body to get turned on.

It now seems that instead of desire leading to arousal, as researchers once believed, arousal may lead to desire.

The brain, as D. H. Lawrence once wrote, is a most important sexual organ [syd note: also, famously, Woody Allen's second favourite], and men and women have extremely varied responses to sexual stimuli.

As Natalie Angier, The Times’s biology expert, noted, research has shown that women differed from men “in the importance they accorded a man’s physical appearance, with many expressing a comparatively greater likelihood of being aroused by evidence of talent or intelligence — say, while watching a man deliver a great speech.”

This could explain why many Republican women are so frustrated. They have been deprived of the bristly excitement of hearing their men on the stump delivering great speeches for quite some time now.

The Daddy Party, sick with desire for a daddy, is like a lost child. John McCain, handcuffed to the Surge, announced yesterday he has the support of Henry Kissinger. Why not just drink poison? As the Boston Globe columnist Joan Vennochi slyly said, “Leave it to Mitt Romney to shoot himself in the foot with a gun he doesn’t own.”

Rudy Giuliani, already haunted by the specters of Bernard Kerik’s corruption and Judy Nathan’s conjugal confusion, yesterday made things worse. He did the same thing John McCain did in South Carolina in 2000, a sickening pander the Arizona senator told “60 Minutes” Sunday that he did “for all the wrong reasons.” As Marc Santora reports from Montgomery, Rudy said he would leave the decision about whether to fly the Confederate flag over the Alabama State Capitol to the people of Alabama.

Read More Here

Sudarsan Raghavan, The Washington Post, April 10, 2007

BAGHDAD –In a garage filled with classic motorcycles, Khadim al-Jubouri stared at the 4-year-old magazines he usually keeps in a wooden desk. All of them contained photos of a burly man wearing a black tank top and swinging a sledgehammer into the base of a bronze statue of Saddam Hussein. The man was al-Jubouri.

Days earlier, he might have been executed for his actions. But it was April 9, 2003.

Crowds of chanting Iraqis, some clutching stones and sandals, swarmed Firdaus Square to deliver blows to the statue. Then, with the help of an American tank and a winch, it toppled, creating one of the defining images of the U.S.-led invasion. Over one photo of al-Jubouri, a headline reads: “The Fall of Baghdad.”

“It achieved nothing,” he said after putting away the magazines.

Four years later, with violence besieging the country, al-Jubouri cares most about security and order, and he has seen little of either. He blames Iraq’s Shiite-led government and its security forces, and he wishes for a return of the era led by the man whose statue he helped tear down.

“We got rid of a tyrant and tyranny. But we were surprised that after one thief had left, another 40 replaced him,” said al-Jubouri, who is a Shiite. “Now we regret that Saddam Hussein is gone, no matter how much we hated him.”

Read More Here

Max Blumenthal, The Huffington Post, April 9, 2007

“If I only had two seconds to tell you why I’m here, I’d have to say this: I want to leave the world a better place than I found it. Tough assignment, but, worth a try.”

–Monica Goodling on her Regent University homepage:

When Monica Goodling’s name erupted into the news last week, the mainstream press discovered suddenly that Pat Robertson’s Regent University exists. Not only that, the press learned that it has made a deep footprint in George W. Bush’s Washington.

Since Robertson’s failed presidential campaign, coverage of him has largely focused on his mercurial and bizarre personality. He seemed only to appear in the news when one of his many entertainingly outrageous gaffes or false prophecies earned publicity. While Robertson’s hysterical episodes deserved all the coverage they generated, with a few notable exceptions, the mainstream press habitually ignored his political machinations. Robertson and his cadres exploited this lack of scrutiny to quietly erect a sophisticated and far-reaching political network that today propells the Christian right’s ongoing march through the institutions.

The mainstream press could not have made its recent discovery of Robertson’s influence on its own, of course. As is so often the case, they needed a little push from the blogosphere and independent media. I am confident enough to claim at least a small portion of credit for moving this story forward when I reported here and on my blog that Goodling was among 150 Regent grads currently working in the Bush administration.

Days after the Goodling-Regent connection was introduced by the liberal blogosphere, the New York Times noted that Goodling “is a 1995 graduate of Messiah College in Grantham, Pa., and received her law degree at Regent University in Virginia Beach, according to many Web site postings.”

Read More Here

Paul Krugman, The New York Times, April 9, 2007

Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.

But there’s another political lesson I don’t think has sunk in: the power of the Little Lie — the small accusation invented out of thin air, followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren’t meant to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a sense that the person facing all these accusations must have done something wrong.

For a long time, basically from 9/11 until the last remnants of President Bush’s credibility drowned in New Orleans, the Bush administration was able to go big on its deceptions. Most people found it inconceivable that an American president would, for example, assert without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies. Mr. Bush won the 2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn’t believe he would grossly mislead them on matters of national security.

Before 9/11, however, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots. The Clinton years were a parade of fake scandals: Whitewater, Troopergate, Travelgate, Filegate, Christmas-card-gate. At the end, there were false claims that Clinton staff members trashed the White House on their way out.

Each pseudoscandal got headlines, air time and finger-wagging from the talking heads. The eventual discovery in each case that there was no there there, if reported at all, received far less attention. The effect was to make an administration that was, in fact, pretty honest and well run — especially compared with its successor — seem mired in scandal.

Even in the post-9/11 environment, little lies never went away. In particular, promoting little lies seems to have been one of the main things U.S. attorneys, as loyal Bushies, were expected to do. For example, David Iglesias, the U.S. Attorney in New Mexico, appears to have been fired because he wouldn’t bring unwarranted charges of voter fraud.

Read More Here

Sarah Posner, The Washington Spectator, April 1, 2007

On a dismal, rainy afternoon, over tea and Pepsi and a plate of fries at the Bob Evans restaurant in Cannonsburg, Kentucky, Bill Scaggs, a retired government and public-relations executive of ARMCO Steel, told me why he thinks that homosexuality is the greatest threat to America. “AIDS kills,” was his circa 1984 answer, “and the most common way to pass that on of course is from homosexual contact.” His voice cracking with indignation, Scaggs added that he refuses to use the word gay. “It’s homosexual, or worse,” he says. “Gay is in our Kentucky song! They took it away and trampled on it. We want it back.”

Scaggs is a board member of Defenders Voice, a local organization formed two years ago by a group of ministers and their followers who fought the formation of a Gay-Straight Alliance (GSA) at Boyd County High School, just up the road from where we sat. Located on a stretch of state highway dotted with churches, dollar stores, payday lenders, and a drive-through cigarette store, the high school had become a place where anti-gay harassment had become an everyday occurrence.

Most of the time, student organizers of the Boyd County GSA said, the basis for the harassment was religious. One of the organizers, Libby Fugett, said that “most of the people at school, even the younger people, who would call us names at school, they would cuss at us; they would say, You f’ing fag, you’re going to hell…. They just think it’s excusable because their religion backs it up. And that was a really big part of it. It’s okay for them to sin against us because we’re sinners.”

Leading the charge against the GSA were ministers, led by the Rev. Tim York, who said they “believe the Bible to be the word of God; we believe that homosexuality is a sin.” (In 2004, York, who is now the pastor of a church in Nashville, ran an unsuccessful campaign for the Kentucky Senate on an anti-gay-marriage platform, with backing from the state and national Republican parties.) York and his followers exerted such intense pressure on school officials that it influenced their decision on the GSA, ultimately forcing the students to sue the school system in order have the GSA recognized.

To settle the case, the school district agreed to conduct mandatory anti-harassment training for all students. Although the training consisted of just a one-hour video once a year, York was intent on preventing students from seeing what he considered “indoctrination [into the] homosexual lifestyle … indoctrination to tear down the Christian view that homosexuality is wrong. It is reverse discrimination, is what it is.” The minister-led group circulated opt-out forms in an effort to exempt students from watching the video, but the forms were not legally binding. York, his followers, and some parents wanted to exempt Christian students, legally, from watching the court-ordered anti-harassment video. To vindicate what he believed to be their legal rights, York knew exactly where to turn for help: the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF).

Read More Here

Mark Silva, The Chicago Tribune, April 8, 2007

DALLAS –For Southern Methodist University, the alma mater of First Lady Laura Bush and a proud, nearly century-old institution, the prospect of housing the George W. Bush Presidential Library would seemingly be an honor.

Yet the possible advent of the Bush library — and especially an ideological think tank planned as part of it — has split the SMU faculty, feeding a debate that simmers beneath the serenity of the leafy campus. At an institution dedicated to scholarly achievement and academic freedom, many fear the work of the Bush Institute would forever associate SMU with a right-wing political agenda.

The vision of a Bush-backed think tank at a campus owned by the United Methodist Church has exposed emotional rifts within a church already dividedover the war in Iraq. Bishops and other clergy critical of the pre-emptive war and the administration’s treatment of enemy combatants are protesting what they view as a memorial to Bush, a Methodist whose policies they say are “antithetical” to their teachings.

Rev. C. Joseph Sprague, a recently retired Chicago-area Methodist bishop, calls the war and other Bush policies “antithetical to the Methodist movement.” Sprague summed up the sentiment of several bishops protesting the Bush Institute.

“I am hesitant to see Southern Methodist University welcoming the institute of a Methodist who has been so contrary to the teachings of the Methodist Church,” he said. “It will do nothing but perpetuate the kind of neocon thinking of this administration which has taken both this nation and the world in the wrong direction.”

Read More Here

Frank Rich, The New York Times, April 8, 2007

John McCain’s April Fools’ Day stroll through Baghdad’s Shorja market last weekend was instantly acclaimed as a classic political pratfall. Protected by more than a hundred American soldiers, three Black Hawk helicopters, two Apache gunships and a bulletproof vest, the senator extolled the “progress” and “good news” in Iraq. Befitting this loopy brand of comedy — reminiscent of “Wedding Crashers,” in which Mr. McCain gamely made a cameo appearance — the star had a crackerjack cast of supporting buffoons: Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who told reporters “I bought five rugs for five bucks!,” and Representative Mike Pence of Indiana, who likened the scene to “a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.”

Five rugs for five bucks: boy, we’ve really got that Iraq economy up and running now! No wonder the McCain show was quickly dubbed “McCain’s Mission Accomplished” and “McCain’s Dukakis-in-the-Tank Photo Op.” But at a certain point the laughter curdled. Reporters rudely pointed out there were 60-plus casualties in this market from one February attack alone and that six Americans were killed in the Baghdad environs on the day of his visit. “Your heart goes out to just the typical Iraqi because they can’t have that kind of entourage,” said Kyra Phillips of CNN. The day after Mr. McCain’s stroll, The Times of London reported that 21 of the Shorja market’s merchants and workers were ambushed and murdered.

The political press has stepped up its sotto voce deathwatch on the McCain presidential campaign ever since, a drumbeat enhanced by last week’s announcement of Mr. McCain’s third-place finish in the Republican field’s fund-raising sweepstakes. (He is scheduled to restate his commitment to the race on “60 Minutes” tonight.) But his campaign was sagging well before he went to Baghdad. In retrospect, his disastrous trip may be less significant as yet another downturn in a faltering presidential candidacy than as a turning point in hastening the inevitable American exit from Iraq.

Mr. McCain is no Michael Dukakis. Unlike the 1988 Democratic standard-bearer, who was trying to counter accusations that he was weak on national defense, the Arizona senator has more military cred than any current presidential aspirant, let alone the current president. Every American knows that Mr. McCain is a genuine hero who survived torture during more than five years of captivity at the Hanoi Hilton. That’s why when he squandered that credibility on an embarrassing propaganda stunt, he didn’t hurt only himself but also inflicted collateral damage on lesser Washington mortals who still claim that the “surge” can bring “victory” in Iraq.

It can’t be lost on those dwindling die-hards, particularly those on the 2008 ballot, that if defending the indefensible can reduce even a politician of Mr. McCain’s heroic stature to that of Dukakis-in-the-tank, they have nowhere to go but down. They’ll cut and run soon enough. For starters, just watch as Mr. McCain’s G.O.P. presidential rivals add more caveats to their support for the administration’s Iraq policy. Already, in a Tuesday interview on “Good Morning America,” Mitt Romney inched toward concrete “timetables and milestones” for Iraq, with the nonsensical proviso they shouldn’t be published “for the enemy.”

Read More Here

William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t, April 6, 2007

Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow

- T.S. Eliot

Arizona Sen. John McCain took a walk through a Baghdad market on April Fool’s Day, and may well have burned his presidential campaign down to the ground in the process. That little stroll has visited upon his head a deluge of humiliation and shame vast and astonishing enough to beggar imagination, and that was before the bodies started hitting the ground.

Translated into mathematical terms, McCain’s walk was Pythagorean in scope, squared hypocrisy added to squared idiocy equaling squared disgrace. In political terms, McCain’s Baghdad walk was a full-blown, bull-moose, train-wreck disaster of truly galactic proportions: a veritable Hindenberg of campaign photo-op debacles. It was so mind-bendingly ugly and deranged and disgusting that the once-iconic “Dukakis in the Tank” blunder now seems quaint by comparison.

The genesis of this catastrophe, in case you missed it, was a verbal gaffe by McCain during a widely broadcast interview last week. After enduring several minutes of sharp interrogation regarding his staunch support of Bush, the war and the “surge,” a neuron within his logic circuits apparently misfired. He claimed, with an entirely straight face, that the streets of Baghdad are today entirely safe for an American to walk down. This whopper made even the most shamelessly craven war apologists shake their heads in public, and forced McCain to undertake a desperate face-saving lunge to recover some shred of credibility.

McCain traveled to Baghdad to prove his claim correct, and the pictures appeared shortly thereafter. In the first available frames, the senator was shown walking through a Baghdad marketplace wearing a Kevlar vest, a general on his right and a troop on his left, and a second troop three steps ahead brandishing his rifle. While this kind of protection detail seemed to undermine his claims of safety, the escort and the vest could easily be understood as normal and necessary precautions taken to protect a visiting dignitary. For a time, McCain appeared to have made his point.

It didn’t last. On the heels of those narrow-scope photos came reports of what McCain’s entourage was actually comprised of. That “safe” Baghdad market had been flooded with more than one hundred battle-ready troops and armored Humvees. Three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apache attack helicopters roared overhead, and sharpshooters were posted on the surrounding rooftops. Simply put, McCain’s “safe” street was one overly loud mouse-fart away from being paved with flaming lead during every step of that little walk.

To compound the calamity, a report emerged two days later describing the abduction and slaughter of 21 Iraqis who worked in the marketplace McCain’s mini-Normandy force had stormed the previous Sunday, an obvious act of retribution for his visit by a violent Baghdad militia. Already belied by the revealed firepower he brought along, McCain’s “safe” walk in Iraq led directly to yet another horrific Baghdad bloodbath. There is bad, there is awful, and then there is this thing, this quantum singularity of ignominy that bends the very light now shining upon it.

Read More Here

     Scribe knows how hard it is to live up to campaign promises. He also knows how hard it is for you to be honest and to prevent yourself from getting people killed for fun, but let’s not get nasty, shall we?

     Oops, too late.

     During your 04 campaign you promised that you would make the world a more peaceful place. Let’s skip the little lie about it being a “more peaceful” place since you stole your throne, shall we? Little? Well, “little” compared to many of the worse whoppers you keep telling. Do you insist on making whoppers because you have stock in Burger King?

     Anyway, Scribe is here to help you live up to expectations. It’s going to be tough, but doable.

     First, declare a national emergency and order DC evacuated. In fact you might want, for national security, to evacuate a much larger region. This would include Congress, except those Senators and Representatives who are most loyal to you, the Bushie babies. You know, your favorite political zombies? Make sure those who disagree with you are as far away from the DC area as possible.

     Second, declare a national conference at the White House on peace. Invite the same Congressmen and women that weren’t evacuated. Invite all the talking heads who have supported you so much. Invite corporate execs who are in your pocket; you in theirs. Military leaders too; just those who lie for you. Past administration members get a special invite.

     Gather them together in the White House, and once you’re sure they’re all there, lock the doors, point guns at them: shooting anyone who moves, and call in a tactical nuclear strike on the White House.

     Scribe promises, if you join them for the final event, the world will be a more peaceful place.

     Just a suggestion.

 Link

Michael Imperioli is ready for the end.  

“If it ends with me as the boss then what’s the point, it’s over, right?    Then I don’t get to enjoy it,” he laughed. “I don’t have any desires in that how it ends. I mean, I know however it’s going to end, it’s going to be interesting and appropriate.”

Paul Krugman, The New York Times, April 6, 2006

Consider the choice between two government programs.

Program A would provide essential health care to the eight million uninsured children in this country.

Program B would subsidize insurance companies, who would in turn spend much of the money on marketing and paperwork, and also siphon off a substantial fraction of the money as profits. With what’s left, the insurers would provide additional benefits, over and above basic Medicare coverage, to some older Americans.

Which program would you choose? If money is no object, you might go for both. But if you can only have one, it’s hard to see how anyone could, in good conscience, fail to choose Program A. I mean, even conservatives claim to believe in equal opportunity — and it’s hard to say that our society offers equal opportunity to children whose education may be disrupted, who may even find their lives cut short, because their families can’t afford proper medical care.

And here’s the thing: The question isn’t hypothetical. Universal health care may happen one of these years, but the choice between A and B is playing out right now.

Program A is the proposal by Senator Hillary Clinton and Representative John Dingell to cover all children by expanding the highly successful State Children’s Health Insurance Program. To pay for that expansion, Democrats are talking about saving money by shutting down Program B, the huge subsidy to private insurance plans for Medicare recipients — so-called Medicare Advantage plans — created by the 2003 Medicare Modernization Act.

The numbers for that trade-off add up, with a little room to spare. Covering all children would cost about $50 billion over the next five years, while the Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating the Medicare Advantage subsidy would save $65 billion over the same period (and $160 billion over the next decade.)

Now, nobody is proposing that Medicare ban private plans — all that’s on the table is requiring that they compete with traditional Medicare, run directly by the government, on a fair basis. And that’s not what’s happening now. According to Medpac, the official nonpartisan commission that assesses Medicare payments, Medicare Advantage plans now cost taxpayers an average of 12 percent more per enrollee than traditional Medicare. Private fee-for-service plans, the fastest-growing type, cost 19 percent extra.

Read More Here