Chris Wallace: Owned

Both sides will claim victory: Clinton bitch- slapped Chris Wallace versus Fox News made Clinton lose his cool. If you haven't seen the unedited video, it's worth a peek. If you've seen clips, there's value in seeing the entire segment in order to appreciate the wind up and the pitch by the interviewer. Also, to truly appreciate Clinton's answer, listen to what he says rather than merely focusing on his demeanor or his socks.

Wallace begins his “question”, which is really just a smirky gotcha, with a laundry list of every bomb that has gone off since 1993, including WTC attacks, Somalia Blackhawk Down episode, US embassy attacks in Africa, OBL's war declaration and finally the USS Cole, before asking if Clinton did enough to catch Osama bin Laden. Wallace prefaced the question with the canard that “viewers want to know” and referenced the latest book The Looming Tower.

Clinton showed justified indignation when responding:

1. The WTC attacks in 1993 and the US embassy bombings were done before OBL and al Qaeda were on the radar of our clandestine services.

2. Somalia ws not recognized as having anything to do with Osama bin Laden, but rather Muhammad Aidid.

3. The CIA and FBI did not recognize al Qaeda as the responsible party in the African bombings until much later.

4. USS Cole was attacked in October 2000 and the investigation wasn't completed until early 2001 when inspectors determined that al Qaeda, and not Hamas, was responsible.

So, the long preface to Wallace's question was 95% bullshit that had nothing to do with the resolve of the previous administration to get bin Laden. Fox news is so used to interviewees dreamily going along with the canard that they are surprised when somebody is intellectually honest enough to dissect the issues and put them into temporal context.

The USS Cole is the seminal issue. The official report came out in early 2001 that Osama bin Laden was responsible and reports littered the intelligence estimates that OBL was “determined to attack within the US” during the summer of 2001. Richard Clarke, in his book Against All Enemies, is the only high ranking official to come clean on the handling of this information and gives a first-hand account of why and when action could have been taken. The facts can only be fleshed out by people who were actually there. Clarke maintains that the Bush administration disbanded the OBL unit and began to pull back the human intelligence and signal intelligence resources dedicated to al Qaeda surveillance.

The myth that Clarke is a partisan Bush-basher was also addressed by Clinton, who pointed out that Clarke served Reagan, George H.W. Bush and then Clinton before being demoted by George W. Bush when the anti-terror priorities changed in early 2001. Clarke is a dedicated government bureaucrat who has served the US in various capacities under several administrations. Why read books by journalists when there's one out there written by the former head of the OBL unit of the National Security Administration?

Was Clarke just covering his ass by coming out early with his account after the tragedy of 9/11? That would hold water if the 9/11 Commission hadn't corroborated many of the facts asserted by Clarke. If the 9/11 Commission Report can't be read in its entirety, then at least read Chapter 8, entitled “The System was Blinking Red”, which is a must read for any responsible citizen. Anyone who can read that chapter and not flesh out that Bush, with his 4 week vacation in August and his priority of getting big tax cuts for the wealthy, dropped the ball on OBL, needs to re-evaluate their reading comprehension skills.

I think Clinton's surmise of Chris Wallace was perfect and I was heartened that someone finally called out Fox News for their partisan bias. Clinton asked why nobody from the Bush administration was ever asked about the USS Cole, and Wallace tried to hedge that “a lot of questions were asked”, but Clinton rightfully pressed him: “but not that one.” Indeed, so why was it asked of Clinton, because of Wallace's intellectual curiosity? The investigation, completed in 2001, clearly has been ignored by our government and media.

Wallace is trying to frame the coming election with "Clinton missed bin Laden, so Democrats cannot be trusted in the War on Terrah (TM)", and Clinton nipped that crap in the bud. I saw it as a controlled, calculated response that Clinton the politician planned long ago. And, as the kids say, Wallace got owned. I realize that Bush and Fox apologists won't see it that way, but who cares? Anybody so deficient to have voted for Bush is probably also too cataleptic to squeeze the remote hard enough to change the cable station over to Olbermann.

It was refreshing to see someone call out Wallace for his intellectual dishonesty, even if the reality set in afterward that Fox News remains unfazed when their website published this picture:

...and Fox has higher ratings than any other cable news outlet. Is that a respectful “fair and balanced” way to portray a former President by a responsible news outlet?

I've said this before: history will be extremely harsh to George W. Bush, and by proxy his personal media outlet, Fox News. Unnecessary wars which lead to accelerating terror will be the legacy of our current president and the press outlets have enabled such repetitive miscalculation. The next generations will pay for all the boondoggles initiated under the current leadership.

I have compassion for citizens who voted for Bush, especially in the last election when it was clear to every informed citizen that Bush is an idiot who has mismanaged our government. I have compassion for these citizens who feel that the mere act of voting fulfills their responsibility, not giving heed to the consequences of a poorly cast ballot.

Mostly, I have compassion for our nation, which is at the mercy of its collective delusional fears that are skillfully stoked by political operatives, like Wallace, whose cynical misinformation permeates our society. Our higher senses have been dulled by the constant drone of partisan derision, so much so that we fail to recognize the subtleties of targeted questions on pseudo-news shows. We have become a nation of hair-trigger limbic systems reacting only at gut level and mistaking it for responsibly informed citizenship.

Whither Orwell?

Rush Limbaugh: Brave Slayer of Straw Men

I admit that I am undecided on the choice of Katie Couric as Dan Rather’s replacement on the CBS Evening News. I probably watch the network evening news 2 or 3 times per week on average and also listen to other news sources and Sunday morning pundit shows, as well as read various news periodicals on-line.

My fear is that Katie Couric will function as a soft news source with a cute smile and no gravitas. The verdict is still out. One item that is interesting, however, is the “Free Speech” segment where sundry mouthpieces are given a few minutes to voice their opinions. This week the topic is “The War on Terror” in observance of the looming 5 year anniversary of 9-11 and tonight’s guest was Rush Limbaugh, the tireless drug-addicted self-promoter with “intelligence on loan from God.” On the off chance that my radio tuner has accidentally fallen on his AM afternoon screech-fest, I am always impressed with his ability to whine on and on about some irksome non-issue and make absolutely no sense.

So I was interested to see what Rush would do with a few minutes of a legitimate news show like CBS. Not that his audience on radio is any smaller, but certainly network news carries a bit more cache, so what would Rush have to say with his 3 minutes (transcript) of air?

“My friends, it's time to face a hard cold fact: Militant Islam wants to kill us just because we're alive and don't believe as they do. And they have been killing us for decades. It is time to stop pretending these are mere episodic events and face the reality that our way of life is in grave danger. Now, this threat is not just go away because we choose to ignore it.”

While I may not give “militant Islam” so much credit as to threaten our “way of life”, I would agree that ignoring it is not a viable option. But then, who exactly is advocating ignoring Islamists who threaten us? Do the militants want to kill us really because we’re “alive” and don’t “believe as they do”? Or could our support of despotic regimes such as the Saudis and other illiberal governments foment hatred among the burgeoning underclass within the Arab and Asian world? Can we pursue a dialog about justice throughout the Muslim world at the same time we pursue our security? Is our “addiction to oil”, as President Bush finally realizes, part of the equation?

“Some say we try diplomacy. Yeah, well tell me, how do we negotiate with people whose starting point is our death? Ask them to wait for 10 years, before they kill us? When Good negotiates with Evil, Evil will always win. And peace follows victory, not words issued by diplomats.”

Rush develops his straw man further with the famous “some say” who want to “try diplomacy.” This “some say” bullshit may work with presidential town hall meetings of Stepford Republicans, but sorry, it won’t fly on CBS News. Who the hell are the “some” who want to negotiate? And with whom? Is the President’s leniency on Pakistan as they harbor Osama bin Laden part of the “diplomacy” that Rush finds so abhorrent? Did Reagan’s negotiations with Iran over arms and hostages in the 1980’s weaken our hand now as they pursue nuclear capabilities?

“But some Americans, sadly, are not interested in victory. And yet they want us to believe that their behavior is Patriotic. Well, it's not. When the critics are more interested in punishing this country over a few incidents at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay than they are in defeating those who want to kill us; when they seek to destroy a foreign surveillance program which is designed to identify those who want to kill us and how they intend to do it; when they want to grant those who want to kill us, U.S. constitutional rights, I don't call that patriotic.”

Again, the straw men “some” Americans are 1) “not interested” in victory, 2) “more interested” in criticizing America and 3) seeking to “destroy” our clandestine services? Who? How? What I have been hearing the last few years is intelligent argument from the loyal opposition in response to illegal surveillance programs and criminal torture of prisoners, a discussion that acts to strengthen our position versus illiberal enemies by demonstrating our resolve for justice and against tyranny, even when the perpetrators are our own. "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."--- Ben Franklin. That means you, Rush.

“Patriotism is rallying behind the country, regardless of party affiliation, to defeat Islamo-Fascism. Patriotism is supporting our troops on the battlefield, not undermining the mission and morale. But let there be no doubt about this. America will prevail. We're the same country that survived a bloody Civil War, defeated the Nazis and the Soviets. Each generation has a responsibility to the next. Our generation will not disappoint.”

Rush Limbaugh, the “patriot” who avoided military service during the cold war, a time when our way of life was truly in jeopardy, is lecturing about patriotism: and on national television no less. No wonder, Dick Cheney chooses Rush’s show to present major policy announcements, where chickenhawks feel comfortable. Rush, the pathetic self-loathing addict, then lectures about “responsibility.” Ha! I had to look at the clock because I thought maybe this was Letterman’s comedy show, but no it’s still Couric.

I realize that Rush’s polemic will have no substantive effect on the national debate. Fearful warmongers will gobble this up as further evidence that we should forsake our Constitution as soon as we feel threatened by a bunch of thugs. More rational folks will dismiss Rush as “just another infotainer” who should not be taken seriously. Is such divisiveness on such important issues really entertaining?

I appreciate that Katie Couric is interested in giving voice to various opinions, but such undeveloped lines of unreason as Rush’s screed may serve only to dissociate the viewers from reality. There may be some valid arguments in favor of torture and surveillance, and against the tyrannical oppressors in the world, but Rush’s nitwitted idea of “patriotism” as blind “support for our troops” with no room for democratic debate 4 years into a military misadventure is ridiculous.

If Couric’s point was to show us Rush is an idiot, then she’s already a success. Now tell us some news, Katie.

Mass Confusion causes chaos in my brain

Apparently Donald Rumsfeld says I'm confused. I can't decide whether my confusion is moral or intellectual. Sometimes I think it's moral confusion, but then other times I'm convinced it's really intellectual confusion. Whoa, I just had a horrific thought: Could I be both? Maybe I'm just generally confused. Yeah, that must be it. I wish somebody could help me out.

Recently I had a discussion at work with a group of younger folks, all college-educated with at least associates degrees, about the poll which showed that 30% of American adults did not know what year the 9/11 attacks on the WTC occurred. I was heartened that 100% of the six people in the room dutifully chirped in near-unison “2001”, although one admitted she only knew it because she had been married six weeks prior to the fateful date. Our discussion then traversed a couple generations and the other date that lives in infamy: December 7th. The group did not fare as well with only one person even getting the correct decade, but stating “1945.” Another twenty-something thought it had something to do with men walking on the moon, and two thought it marked the end of World War II. The one dissenter simply exclaimed, “I'm not a history person.”

Which brings us to the discussion at hand. With most polemics, whether political or otherwise, two or more sides develop arguments in support of their theses and discussion usually progresses until some conclusion is made. Sometimes common ground is established, but often, in political arguments especially, the various sides must agree to disagree. Over a longer period of time, as heat gives way to light, one side will be determined to be more correct than the others. Galileo was correct that the earth orbited the sun, and the Roman Catholic dogma was incorrect in their view of contention of the opposite. Former Republican advisor Brent Scowcroft was more correct in his trepidation about entering the Iraq war, while Donald Rumsfeld was incorrect in his supposition that the Iraq war would be a “cakewalk. It took the church 400 years to acknowledge it's mistake, let's hope Rummy doesn't take as long.

Facts are facts and with time disputatious arguments will often be resolved. The Iraq war issue is not a question of right vs. left, or liberal vs. conservative. It is a question of correct vs. incorrect, and our current government has been incorrect. Period. Now Mr. Rumsfeld is telling me that I am confused, a confusion apparently shared by several retired generals, various Republican advisors, historians, pundits of the right and left, UN weapons inspectors, the Duelfer Report on Iraqi weapons caches, and 60% of the American people. That's a lot of confusion, whether it's moral, intellectual, or otherwise.

Being called “confused” by someone as bat-shit crazy as Don Rumsfeld is like being called “drunk” by Farrah Fawcett, or being labeled “glib” by Tom Cruise. Other than triggering a giggle, being insulted by Rummy hardly gives me pause.

Comedy aside, Mr. Rumsfeld's tactic of dismissing all dissent as “confused”, is not only insincere, but anathema to our form of government. A contemporary of George Orwell once said that “all governments are oligarchies” and the issues are whether they are competent, incompetent, benevolent or evil. The purpose of the statement was to recommend his friend Orwell as Britain's “chief oligarch” at the start of WW II because he was an intellectual stalwart as well as a “secular saint.” Whatever your opinion of Bush's and Rumsfeld's sanctity, not many people can argue that they are overflowing with competence.

For Rummy to intimate that his critics are somehow deficient in lucidity is an affront to honest discourse necessary to solve the immense problem of Iraq. He has so fucked this up that he cannot figure out a solution. I feel his pain. We all make mistakes, and unfortunately the mistakes made in Iraq have metastasized into mushrooming problems with our budget, our allies and our national unity. No matter how wacky these “five morons” , as one Reagan official called them, in charge of our foreign policy may be, I have little doubt that they are devastated by every injured or killed American soldier and Iraqi civilian, and each “setback” in the spiraling descent into civil war. I may not agree with this administration's view of Iraq, but I cannot fathom that they are so evil that they would be indifferent to the suffering caused by their incompetence.

Why does Rumsfeld engage in such sophomoric propaganda as comparing his critics to “Nazi appeasers” and calling them “confused”? You'll have to ask him, but my guess is that he is trying to stop the deafening cacophony of critique that is only becoming more shrill with each passing day, each Baghdad car-bomb, each inane remark, each brave soldier laid to rest in Arlington.

Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies states that as a discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison to Nazism or Hitler approaches one. A corollary points out that once that analogy is made, the argument ceases, and whomever brought up the comparison to Nazism automatically loses. Does Rummy lose merely by comparing his opponents to Nazi sympathizers? No, he loses the argument because he is wrong.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice have been wrong for quite some time. They have been wrong so many times and in so many ways, that the only tactic that remains is to just plead with their critics to please stop criticizing. In my view, Rummy's latest tirades are heartfelt appeals to get his critics to cease and desist.

Will this tactic work to quell the dissent? Unlikely. But then, Rumsfeld thinks I'm confused, so I doubt he cares what I think.

Unfortunately for our oligarchs, and us by proxy, the increasing volume of dissent is coming from all quarters. Rich Lowery of the National Review, Quin Hillyer of the American Spectator, columnist George Will and the iconic William F. Buckley, all venerable conservatives and once-Bushophiles, have renounced current Iraqi policy. For Rumsfeld to call me confused is one thing, but for such an erudite group of right-wing ideologues to also stumble onto the exact same flavor of dementia strains credulity. Perhaps we should all be picking out matching Neville Chamberlain bowlers and umbrellas next week.

There is something more problematic about Rummy's calling his critics morally and intellectually confused. Not only is he incorrect, although I'll leave others to list the reasons, but more damning is that such rhetoric shows that Rumsfeld is simply not seriously pursuing solutions to Iraq. Just as alcoholics must eventually admit that a problem exists, Rumsfeld, Bush, Cheney and Rice, if they are ever serious about resolving the quagmire and impending civil war, must admit that we have entered the dark night of our national soul. How many New Jersey living rooms will Elton John park his Lincoln in before he signs up for rehab?

You could fill volumes with what I don't know about foreign policy and warmongering, but I do have an informal acquaintance with decision-making. Rumsfeld taking time out of his busy day to comment on my moral and intellectual hygiene is laughable. You have a war to fight for chrissake. The only analogy I can countenance is an obstetrician encountering a woman in her 36^th hour of labor, blood gushing from her womb and fetal heart tones becoming fainter; the nurses near panic as the mother's vital signs become thready, and Dr. Rumsfeld turns to the distraught father to conjecture about his alleged moral and intellectual deficiencies. Doctor, are you going to deliver the baby, or just whine about everybody else's moral and intellectual state?

We all suffer as a result of the incompetence of our oligarchs, but doubtless some suffer more than others. As a middle-class, middle-aged, mid-level professional living in a middle-sized town in the middle of the Midwest, the redundancies that secure my well-being are multi-layered. I have no children, nieces or nephews who are military-aged. Bush's first order of business in 2001 was to give me a fat tax cut. My house and Nissan are all but paid off. For me to engage in ad hominem attacks on our incompetent oligarchs would be pointless.

My dissent is not pointless even if it may be of little consequence. I wouldn't have voted for Bush, Rumsfeld, or any of these knuckleheads, for music director for a school for the deaf. Bush's incompetence was obvious from the first time he stepped out of Ken Lay's jet during the Iowa caucuses in February 2000. Cheney's been wrong since the 1970's Nixon years ands when he voted in support of apartheid in South Africa in 1986 and on nearly every issue since. Rumsfeld, whether he's shaking hands with Saddam, underestimating our enemies or nattering on about my mental state, he's clearly a senile curmudgeon desperately in need of collecting his Social Security check. And Condescenda Rice... what can I say? She's one of the few public figures that makes George W. Bush look intelligent; I guess that's her role in this harlequinade. Neither seem to know the difference between strategy and tactics, unless the mission is to have your name on a supertanker.

Former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough broached a recent dialog about whether Bush was “an idiot” and noting that while other presidents have been called stupid, he says "I think George Bush is in a league by himself. I don't think he has the intellectual depth of these other people...George Bush's lack of gravitas is hurting America at home and embarrassing us abroad.” No kidding.

Leaders sometimes have to admit that they are wrong. Don't admit it to me, but at least admit it to yourself. When the Secretary of Defense makes an appeal for support by calling critics “confused” and likening them to “Nazi appeasers”, I know one thing: he has not admitted that his policy is wrong, he has not taken the first step. Instead of running around like his hair on fire, spewing delusional invectives about my cognitive state, he should be quietly and competently formulating a plan to get us the hell out of the Iraq quagmire. A plan is not a constant re-iteration of some vacuous platitude such as the president does when was asked if he has a plan for Iraq: "The strategy is to help the Iraqi people achieve their objectives and their dreams, which is a democratic society. That's the strategy." (Bush, last week.) A plan may contain a mission statement, but more importantly has a few bullet points on strategy and tactics, and addresses several contingencies. You know, a plan. Rumsfeld's “morally and/or intellectually confused” critics seem to be the only ones with plans. And that is downright scary.

I'm sure the young scrub tech referenced earlier who doesn't know Pearl Harbor from Pearl Jam certainly isn't losing sleep over Rummy's burgeoning senility or my electronic rant. She's got kids to raise and a mortgage to pay. We would all be well-served if she informed herself more about what is being done in her name and the name of her country. Somebody voted these guys into office, but the entire world is suffering the consequences. As another contemporary of Orwell once said, we have a moral obligation to be intelligent. If they were still alive, I'm sure Rumsfeld would declare Orwell and his pals certifiably confused.

Victory for Lieberman Republicans?

The cult of Bush has now found something new to be incensed about. Lieberman lost his bid to be re-elected as the Democratic Senator from Connecticut because his opponent, Ned Lamont, ran a campaign focused primarily on Lieberman's unquestioned support of George W. Bush's failed policies in Iraq. On most other issues, barely a ray of light can be seen between the two candidates' views.

I know why Connecticut Dems eschewed Joementum. After making out with the president in the House chamber, Lieberman derided Democrats who served as the loyal opposition to Bush, stating: "It is time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be Commander-in-Chief for three more critical years, and that in matters of war we undermine Presidential credibility at our nation’s peril." Game, set, match. Mr. Magoo could have beaten this idiot in the primary. The start and conduct of the Iraq war was wrong: it has not helped the war on terror, it has not advanced US policy in the world, it has not weakened al Qaeda, and it has yet to benefit the Iraqis (save, of course, Ahmed Chalabi). And knuckleheads like Lieberman thought it prudent to refrain from any discourse just when our nation depended on it.

The unusually delusional Cal Thomas is the latest apologist for failed Bush policies to speak out. He appears to be in the catarrhal phase of his rabid disapproval of Connecticut Democrats who had the gall to exercise their franchise on Tuesday. Uncool Cal says:

“It is a loss for his party and for the country. It completes the capture of the Democratic Party by its Taliban wing....[Democrats] have now morphed into Taliban Democrats because they are willing to "kill" one of their own, if he does not conform to the narrow and rigid agenda of the party's kook fringe.”

Oh please. Ned Lamont is a capable successful citizen with views that are in lockstep with the national Democratic Party and Connecticut voters. Nobody killed Lieberman, he committed political suicide by supporting a failed president in a war that does not serve our national interests, and the voters for once were intelligent enough to recognize it. Is “Taliban” the latest epithet used for opponents, like Nazi has been used in the past.? If so, I'd like to present Grodge's Corollary to Godwin's Law, which would state that comparing a political party to the Taliban ends the argument, and you have lost. Furthermore, your party will likely lose at least one house of Congress in the coming election. Thomas continues:

“[Lieberman's] detractors, who brought him down in the primary with a one-issue, inexperienced and unqualified candidate, Ned Lamont, hate President Bush so much that their judgment has been distorted...The Taliban wing of the Democratic Party cannot countenance any "heretics" who do not toe their line.”

The Iraq war is just “one-issue” like Tiger Woods is just another duffer. Iraq is the defining catastrophe of the generation, and increasingly citizens are recognizing it as a war of choice that was the wrong choice. The defining characteristic of a democracy is that elected officials are to be held accountable for their failures, and who can blame Connecticut voters or refusing an entrenched pol like Lieberman who is cozying up to the corrupt party that has recently had a Republican mayor and governor who were forced to step down for malfeasance, namely soliciting 8 year-olds on the internet and handing lucrative state contracts to cronies. I also find it humorous that Cal Thomas takes issue with “incendiary rhetoric” from a bunch of left-wing bloggers, a few remarks sampled from probably thousands comments made about Lieberman, when his rhetoric about “Taliban Democrats” who issue “political fatwahs” against “heretics” is arguably more incendiary and coming from a supposedly respectable member of the punditocracy to boot.

My favorite line from Thomas' vituperative tirade, however, is his contention that Lamont supporters somehow damage the democratic process. He says: “For those who still believe not only in a strong two-party system, but also in compromise and conciliation in order to promote the general welfare and seek the common good, the Lieberman defeat strikes an especially harmful blow.”

What's in Cal's Kool-aid? When voters disagree with a candidate, they damage the two-party system? I heard nobody advocating a Stalinist or Maoist one-party system. Rather, I saw voters engaging in the responsible conduct of discourse and citizenship. Finally. At long last, maybe rays of morning sunshine are beginning to brighten the horizon after this long, 6 year, dark night of our collective national soul.

Cal Thomas takes the incongruous view of positively spinning Lieberman's loss by concluding that “GOP losses, if any, might not be as bad as predicted this November. Karl Rove could not have devised a more brilliant plan.” Ahh, yes... the old schoolyard canard of "meaning to do that", as in "Yeah, well I meant to hang that curve ball just to see how far you could hit it." On the contrary, if the rest of the nation follows suit and the 70% of Americans who think Iraq was a mistake finally vote the Bush sycophants out of office, we may get not only a Democratic Senate with subpoena power, but we may also get hearings and indictments that are long overdue.

Then maybe Mr. Thomas can stop libeling Lamont supporters as terrorists and start doing something constructive, like campaigning to get donors for Rove's, Cheney's, and Rummy's legal defense funds .

Shi'a Crescent won't end the world (I think)

Billmon’s recent screed is a frightening appraisal of the spiral occurring in the Middle East. I consider Billmon a must-read, and have not missed a post for over a year. He has been consistently out front with pithy insight on the failed US policies overseas, and while I enjoy his writing and banter, I take issue with his current stand.

Billmon's “War Party”:

If the United States were to begin pulling troops out of Iraq now, it would be interpreted correctly throughout the Middle East as an open admission of defeat -- one that would likely lead fairly quickly to a complete American evacuation of the country. (Maybe not literally by landing helicopters on the roof of the embassy, but all in the region would understand the military reality that as the force grows smaller it will become progressively more dangerous to keep it in Iraq.)

Such an outcome could well force Iraq's Shi'a political leaders to snuggle up even more tightly to Iran, if only as a matter of physical survival. If the full-scale civil war everyone seems to expect were to break out following an American withdrawal, Baghdad might even feel compelled to call in Iranian troops. At a minimum, Iran could be left with enormous influence over, if not outright control of, the Iraqi government and its security forces. Access to Iraqi air space would give Iran a direct resupply corridor to Syria, and, through Syria, to Hizbullah. A ground presence could provide Tehran with a direct ground link -- call it the Ayatollah Khomeini Trail -- assuming the Kurds could be bought off and/or intimidated, or the Sunni belt pacified (one shudders to think of what that might involve.)

Presto: one Shi'a crescent to go.

Since Billmon is usually spot on with his analysis, and many of his predictions have been borne out, I fully realize that my current opposition to his grim view of the “Shi’a Crescent” taking shape in the Middle East may merely be my irrational denial of the horrendous consequences of such a development. As with all of my blog entries, this view continues to be a work in progress as I try to hash out my opinions and I fully recognize that it is prudent to take pause whenever one disagrees with one of Billmon’s opinions. So here goes my mental gymnastic exercise:

Left Blogistan, as embodied in Billmon’s entry cited above among many others, is tending toward an indignant, self-righteous cynicism that I don't think is necessarily warranted. Yes, Bush is a first class boob, but just as Islamofascism cannot destroy the West, neither can a mismanaged foreign policy run by chickenhawk neocons. As a culture, I believe we are much stronger than that. In sum, the world is still safer than it was two or three decades ago when our way of life was directly threatened with instant annihilation by Cold War protagonists. Sure, our enemies can catch us sleeping and blow up a few buildings, and maybe even set off a dirty bomb some day, but that does not threatens our way of life, unless we respond in a self-destructive way. My sense is that the majority of Americans are now recognizing that our response of attacking Iraq was indeed an over-reach and we are unlikely to do that again, whether Republicans or Democrats inhabit the Oval Office over the next few decades.

A recent article about Thomas P.M. Barnett is pretty enlightening and presents a more measured view of current events. Barnett is a defense policy consultant who has done work for the Pentagon and has written several books, one of which I read last year, called The Pentagon's New Map. While not a hawk in the neocon sense, Barnett does recognize that there are bad actors in the world that are tending to destabilize various regions of the world, and these regimes sometimes need to be taken out. Barnett argues that nobody is better suited for the military tasks than the US, which he calls the Leviathan, but he also recognizes that we cannot do it alone, and we need friends in the world to help with the necessary "nation-building" chores associated with regime changes. Barnett explains that Core nations make up the regulated economic markets and possess most of the world’s wealth. Alternatively, third world societies of various stripe are called the non-integrated Gap, which is slowly being incorporated into the Core through the gradual pull of globalization. Barnett liberally cites Thomas Friedman and apparently accepts much of the “Moustache’s” tenets.

While these nuances have certainly been lost with the current administration, I believe that Barnett's philosophy is consistent with US policy over the past 60 years, which had been molded over the decades by successes and failures in wars and police actions. World War II is the classic example of the West joining forces to battle a clear and present danger. The Korean War in the 1950's, while not perfectly executed, had showed that the West, when acting together, could be victorious in halting the Red Menace, and generations of South Koreans as well as other Core nations have benefited greatly. The Bay of Pigs in 1961, on the other hand, is an example of the US acting alone and failing. We learned from other failures, such as Vietnam, where we did not heed the object lessons of imperial France who had pulled out in the 1950's at the outset of the ensuing Vietnamese civil war, after which we attempted a unilateral engagement that failed, with many similarities to today’s nightmare. I would argue that the Balkans incursions were examples of near-perfect execution of Barnett’s ideation with US firepower and European forces joining ranks to stem sectarian violence, halt destabilizing refugee migration and bring despotic assholes to justice. The fact that Kosovo and Yugoslavia wars were not long and drawn out are testament to their success. Some isolationists may bemoan the fact that a multinational force is needed in the Balkans to this day, but most would recognize that that is a small price to pay for relative stability.

Iraq is only the most recent example of a gross misjudgment of our abilities to act as the sole purveyor of war and post-war security, unnecessarily acting alone, and the outcome is consistent with Barnett's presumptions about the limitations of a Leviathan force. We simply cannot do it alone. (And, no, Britain's 8,000 soldiers are not enough either.) The unfortunate part is that these lessons should have been learned years ago, but the arrogance of neocon ideologues prevented rational planning, and now we are left with the messy, expensive and demoralizing prospect of withdrawal and failure in Iraq. The worst part is that we have squandered the international support after 9-11, which has set back the prospects of stemming Islamo-terrorists: a real threat that has been recognized for decades, and while it may not destroy our way of life, it may certainly be more costly to control now that al Qaeda and Hezbollah have become emboldened with relative success against the best military powers in the world. The force of globalization may be an inevitable trend toward greater and greater inclusion of third world Gap cultures into the Core of regulated market economies, but Barnett recognizes that this integration we occur with fits and starts of varying degrees, and sometimes military force will be needed to keep the peace. Who better than us to provide that force?

While I don't necessarily disagree with this assessment, I have always had grave reservations about the capabilities of the current administration to make important decisions, and I raised questions prior to the 2000 election. Now, it turns out, these doubts were warranted. The bipartisan chairmen of the 9-11 Commission have now come out with their scathing assessment that the Bush/ Cheney administration overplayed the association between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda among other sins. The only conclusion that one can have is that the Iraq war was the “wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time”, as an intelligent person had said a couple years ago. And no, Kerry and others never “voted for the war” as has been dissembled about for years. The Democrats in the Senate joined Republicans, the president and the world to stand shoulder-to-shoulder against Saddam Hussein in order to get UN inspectors back into Iraq. To have not signed the force resolution (not a war declaration, by the way) would have been negligent on the Democrats’ parts, and yes, that is a gentle indictment of you, Mr. Feingold. In retrospect, the Bush administration, at best, took advantage of the situation and the force resolution in order to rush into the neocon agenda of shoot first, inspect later, which was in contradistinction to most of western civilization. This Iraq debacle is George W. Bush’s, and shame on those who voted for him, who frankly, should have known better.

While I'm not ready to leap over the bridge, like our friend Billmon seems to be threatening, I do realize that we have a long recovery ahead to undo the damage and get back on the track of influencing the world like the benevolent superpower we envision ourselves to be. The “Shi’a Crescent” notwithstanding, I honestly believe that our system will somehow correct itself. Granted, my confidence in our system is a bit shaken, especially when I see fellow citizens and voters listening to David Frum, Jonah Goldberg and Bill O'Reilly, and RE-electing morons like Bush, but at the risk being panglossian, I still think that at the end of the day, we'll pull out of this tailspin and get back to the head of the formation.

Cold Hard Facts About Global Warming

A group of us saw the Al Gore climate documentary last night. The movie, An Inconvenient Truth, is a polished review of the available scientific evidence that the globe is warming and that human fossil fuel use is playing a large role. He paints a dire scenario of flooding, weather change and economic upheaval if the present trend is not reversed, and makes one wonder if we have not passed the tipping point.

Detractors may find Gore’s treatise merely polemical and the most cynical may call it a politically expedient preamble to another run for president with the candidate stoking fears of death and destruction, especially since such tactics worked so well for the current White House inhabitant in 2004. Such cynicism is misplaced when it comes to Gore. His concerns about climate have existed since his college days, and his previous work, Earth in the Balance, was written as long ago as 1992 and has been a subject of this blog in the past.

Gore is not alone in his concern for the planet. The flagship journal, Science, has reviewed the topic in detail and is in lock-step agreement with Gore’s conclusions: The Earth’s climate is changing rapidly and a certain contribution is the carbon emissions from industrialized society over the last 150 years. Indeed, even George W. Bush has given credence to the human contribution to greenhouse gases and the climate impact, although his 2002 Executive Summary is chock full of appeasements, industry subsidies and half-measures instead of realistic alternatives and economically sustainable remedies.

At this point, only a pollyannish lunatic would discount the existence of global warming, its human contribution or the detrimental impact on the planet. The only questions that remain are concerned with how to solve the issue for the next generations, and those questions are compelling enough that they should be addressed in the most expedient time frame.

Reducing carbon emissions and sequestering carbon after it is emitted are the two ways to keep carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere. Since our entire economy is based on the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels, some other forms of non-carbon energy need to be advanced. Wind, solar, nuclear, geothermal and hydro power are the leading candidates, and only nuclear power would create enough useable energy to make it a cost-effective substitute for coal or natural gas. Indeed, France generates over 90% of its electricity from uranium nuclear power plants. The problems, of course, concern handling the waste and ensuring safe operation on a national scale. Illinois, the birthplace of nuclear science, has the largest number of operating nuclear plants in the US, and could serve as a laboratory for further nuclear promotion. The other alternative energy sources could play a boutique role for individuals and small communities that are motivated; certainly investing in such technologies has promise.

Sequestering carbon emissions entails the collection of exhaust fumes from fossil fuel power plants and then either rendering them harmless through a catalytic process or reverse mining them into the ocean or deep cavern in the earth’s crust. While theoretically compelling, such technologies are still in their practical infancy.

Another, more personal, potential remedy is for every individual to attempt to reduce their carbon fuel use. Driving energy efficient automobiles, buying food from the community and setting thermostat timers would all be effective only if undertaken on a large scale. The cynical fact is that such voluntary measures are useless in the short run, and may even have a deleterious effect in the long run. Let me explain.

Let’s say 20% of the population voluntarily chooses to drive less, use less gasoline, keep their homes cooler in the winter and warmer in the summer: this would result in the supply/ demand curve leaning toward less demand and thus more supply. The 80% who choose not to conserve will have cheaper energy prices and therefore be less careful and use more until the curve rebalances. The end result will be no decrease in global carbon emissions.

The above example represents a closed system, which the world markets are not. Add into the mix the rapidly increasing demand for carbon-based energy as the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India, China) economies come on line to western standards and the emissions of carbon dioxide by-product will surely rise exponentially.

So, wearing fuzzy sweaters in January, buying your spouse a Corolla instead of an Impala, and eating asparagus grown in your backyard are all feel-good measures that may even save you a few pennies in petroleum consumption, but the beneficial impact on the planet is zero. A further negative effect of relying on personal conservation is that the 20% who conserve will feel that positive steps are being taken, and thus will not push for global mandates that would be necessary to make a positive global impact on carbon use.

The hard truth is that the solutions are not easy, and they are not personal. The solutions to global warming, assuming we are not too late, can only be found in national and international mandates. Carbon taxes and new technologies mandated and supported by large government regulatory agencies are the only way forward. Just as massive New Deal federal spending on rural electrification changed the USA in the 1930’s, the federal government must take the lead in global warming as well. Half-measures will not do. How much could the $300 billion spent in Iraq have done to reduce US' carbon emissions?

The Kyoto Protocols are not perfect, but the USA was wrong to walk away from the negotiating table. The rest of the world is showing its commitment to addressing the problem, and it’s embarrassing and dangerous for the world’s greatest carbon user to be absent from the discussion. Our political leaders are letting us down. Al Gore, where are you?

A lesson about winners and losers

So here comes Jay Mariotti of the Chicago Sun-Times ranting about his disparaging at the hands, or voice, of Ozzie Guillen. The manager took issue with Mariotti criticizing the way Guillen runs his team-- and not just any team, but the World Series Champion Chicago White Sox.

Mariotti shows up on CNBC tonight to whine to a sympathetic Donny Deutsch about being called a “fag”-- actually, a “fucking fag”-- by Guillen last week and the lack of substantive repercussion from the basball commissioner. Ozzie, for his part, apologized for using the homophobic epithet and (reluctantly) agreed to go through Selig-mandated “sensitivity training.” Of course, first Ozzie harumphed at the idea of “sensitivity training” and instead offered to spend a couple hours with his third-base coach and long-time friend, Joey Cora, because “he’s a sensitive guy, you know.”

Mariotti spews on about Ozzie's lack of sincerity at the the prospect of attending sensitivity training. Correct me if my reasoning is flawed, but if Ozzie were sensitive enough to know that he needs sensitivity training, then he wouldn't need the training in the first place, would he? I am not about to make excuses or explanations for Ozzie’s verbiage. His word choice was, shall we say, suboptimal; but he’s a baseball manager not the Secretary of State, let’s get real.

So what’s the big deal? Ozzie said something he should not have said, according to the unwritten rules of propriety, and he apologized and agreed to participate in some “training.” Everybody hugs, Sox win another pennant, and we’re all happy, no? No. Mariotti is incensed that more isn’t “being done.” He apparently thinks that Guillen should be flown to Eastern Europe, water-boarded and interrogated and then warehoused in Gitmo for the duration of Mariotti’s lame career.

Since Mariotti is presumably a sports reporter (although he has alienated himself within baseball to the degree that he is unable to actually report from the field and clubhouse) he must understand a few things about sports in general, and Chicago sports in specific. Here’s my open letter:

Dear Mr. Mariotti:

1. Professional sports is the last bastion of meritocracy in western civilization. Nobody cares what language an athlete speaks, much less if it's laced with colorful epithets. Athletes that win make more money regardless of how many f-bombs they drop in the clubhouse. No affirmative action, no politics, no nepotism. Baseball serves as one of the few remaining outlets devoid of haranguing about political correctness, and serious fans prefer to keep it that way. The elegant simplicity of the sport is not consistent with the parsing of language and micromanagement of every behavior. Leave it alone, Mr. Mariotti.

2. Ozzie is a winner. Therefore, there will always be a place for him in his chosen sport, baseball. He’s no wordsmith like yourself. He grew up in the barrios of Venezuela without a formal education and has learned his way around a competitive industry in a competitive market that regularly flushes 99.99% of those who attempt to succeed. He earned Rookie of the Year and three All-Star selections in his career, and now he has a World Series ring. You make your living with a word processor; Ozzie does it with his baseball acumen. Sure, you can write columns and intellectually bully around athletes with fancy syntax and deductive reasoning, but sports are not about argument, they are about competition. Just as I wouldn’t expect Secretariat to make my breakfast, I don’t expect Ozzie Guillen to debate a college educated writer on the propriety of language.

3. Chicago sports fans love Ozzie. Next time you wander into Sox Park, go behind home plate on the 100-level concourse and look into the display case and you’ll see the entire reason that your whining will never resonate with White Sox fans. You’ll see the World Series trophy, something that I have never seen before Ozzie brought it to my home town. He was paid to do a job, and he did it. Does he have flaws? You bet. Ozzie is a work in progress and Kenny Williams has his hands full. But fairness dictates that the punishment must fit the crime, and for Guillen, that punishment is sensitivity training.

So, Mr. Mariotti, tomorrow morning when you get up early to tweeze your eyebrows for your next TV appearance, look in the mirror closely, and you’ll see a loser. A reporter who is not allowed to report; a hack "journalist" who has become the story instead of the reporter of the story. Keep picking on Ozzie and his fresh World Series trophy and you’ll see yourself further marginalized as a sports commentator and as a Chicagoan. Perhaps some loser-bait Cubs fans will still buy the Sun-Times to read your drivel, but credible self-respecting sports fans will recognize that you are just a grandstanding media whore who intends to ride this “controversy” for all the print and TV exposure you can.

If you really care about the plight of Chicago baseball, look no further than your Northside team of losers who are nothing less than a disgrace to professional sports franchises everywhere. Try writing a column or two about a real problem and leave the White Sox alone.

XOXO, Grodge.

The Regrettable Mr. Bush

I almost avoided George W. Bush’s press conference tonight. I tried, I really did. I took the dogs for a walk, but when I came home I discovered that the White Sox weren’t playing, and I wandered into a room with a TV on. And, shazam! There they were, the dynamic dickheads of pre-emption: Bush and Blair, or should we call them Mr. 32% and Mr. 26%?

When questioned by a reporter, Bush said he regretted saying “Bring it on” and “Wanted dead or alive” because it sent the “wrong message.” What an absolute asshole. He has done so many numbskull things since those particular utterances that I had forgotten he had even said them. If that were the worst of it, he would still be above 50% approval. Saying stupid things is not his downfall, doing stupid things is his downfall, and the downfall of our soldiers, our treasury, and our diplomatic standing in the world (Mr. 26% notwithstanding).

Bush went on to laboriously tell us that he was trying to “convince the world” that Iran was a threat and that the world was better off with Saddam in jail. “Convince the world”? Maybe if you had done one thing—just one stinking thing—that made sense during your presidency, then “convincing” anybody, not to mention the whole world, wouldn’t be such an impossible task.

So, here’s my tirade to Bush and his infuriating press conference:

Dear George,

Don’t try to convince anybody of anything. Don’t give any opinion, or voice any concern. We know the world is dangerous and the Iranians hate us. They’ve hated us for decades and they’ll hate us for decades to come. We know Kim Jong-il is an asshole. We know we’re addicted to oil and that our economy is vulnerable. These are not some huge revelations that you need to enlighten us of. If the Iranians get an atomic bomb, it will be unfortunate, but so be it. Of course, it will be your fault if they do. Your fault because you commissioned our troops into an unnecessary war, watched as they got mired into a horrendous quagmire, tortured prisoners, and murdered civilians; your policies have poisoned world opinion against US priorities and have required us to spend lives and treasure on a pointless mission.

Likewise, if North Korea bombs Japan, or Islamo-fascists blow up Saudi Arabia’s oil fields, those will be your fault as well. The geopolitical instabilities are gaining steam, and the US is hamstrung; we cannot act diplomatically or militarily. Russia’s Putin, who you “trusted in your heart”, is turning out more old-school KGB than new-age progressive. We cannot flex our muscle or sweeten the porridge.

So, George… just shut up, and as Bill Maher says, don’t touch anything else. Your presidency is pretty much done. You’ve fucked up just about everything you’ve handled, so don’t touch anything anymore.

And please don’t bother with any more press conferences. I don’t care to hear your bullshit mea culpas, knowing that the only reason you would ever cop to having done something “regrettable” is that your approval ratings are in the toilet. Why on earth would you ever say “Bring ‘em on” in the first place? Why would that idea ever float into your tiny, testosterone-laden brain? And what the fuck is the point of “regretting” it? Of all the purely idiotic things that you’ve said and done, that’s the one you regret? “Bring ‘em on”? Duh.

When I first heard your “dead or alive” statement, back in 2001 or 2002, which was followed closely by Darth Cheney’s “head on a platter” comment, I knew then that we had tumbled down the rabbit hole. The discontent I felt at that time, that the heads of state of my great nation would utter such barbaric and imbecilic things, has grown into a full-fledged rage of regret and nauseating disdain for everything that has transpired since that time.

And after all your tinhorn bluster, Osama bin Laden still walks free. Your utterance of “dead or alive” should not be your worst misgiving, rather your failure to live up to the empty threat is the greater sin. For that you should apologize. (But you won’t.)

Before the 2000 election, I read Bill Minutaglio’s biography of you and had you pegged, as Ann Richards has said, as a rich kid who was born on third base who thought he’d hit a triple. Every fear I had that you were some empty suit with a trust fund and a political war chest has come true. You haven’t a clue what noblesse oblige means. You have no respect for the principles of government, or any apparent knowledge of the purpose of government.

Pundits who support you conjecture about the great mission of your presidency, the high ideals and the purity of your motivations. Pundits who oppose you conjecture about the cynical self-interest of your policies, or the evil intentions, or the incompetence. Frankly, none of that interests me. Your policies are just plain bad, whether they are purposefully self-serving or mistaken failures, it doesn’t matter. Whether you are incongruously forthright, secretly intelligent or a bumbling fool makes no difference to me. I cannot know your motivations, your work ethic or your understanding. I have no idea what goes on inside your tiny little mind. All I know is that your actions are not consistent with the productive management of a country-- any country-- especially an exceptional country like ours.

Your results suck, and that, sir, is why your approval ratings are so low. Not the “dead or alive” threat, nor the “mission accomplished” banner, nor the “bring ‘em on” statement: those aren’t the basis of the nation’s disdain for you. The videos of Osama’s continued polemics, the rising death toll in Iraq, the Medicare Part D boondoggle and the crippling federal deficits: those are the real concerns of the American people.

You run this nation like every two-bit enterprise you’ve ever run: Arbusto, Harken Energy, the Texas Rangers baseball team. In case your parents and friends haven’t told you, George, you have always been a miserable failure; and most likely, you always will be.

So, please don’t clutter up my TV with pointless press conferences where you remind us of all the lame-brain things you’ve said or done. I remember them. I was there. It’s painful enough having lived through them once, please let’s not reminisce. Yes, you have said stupid things. In fact, I cannot think of one intelligent, witty or insightful syllable you’ve ever uttered. Yes, you will say stupid things in the future. I can live with that.

For the record, in the future, when someone asks you if you have any regrets, the proper answer is “yes, I regret almost everything I’ve done the last six years. I should have stayed in Texas, I regret running for president; I regret smearing Al Gore, who should have been the president. I regret choosing Cheney as V.P. I regret ignoring threats from al Qaeda, and letting Osama escape at Tora Bora. I regret starting an unnecessary war and killing tens of thousands of humans. I regret not firing Rumsfeld. I regret lying to the American people about intelligence leaks and allowing Karl Rove to serve in the White House. I regret smearing John Kerry, who risked his life in Vietnam while I cavorted with celebrities and campaigned for war mongers. I regret everything because I am a miserable, regrettable hollow fart of a man.”

Love,

Grodge

Nanny State

I've been asked my opinion of Dean Baker’s ebook The Conservative Nanny State, which has some provocative theses on free trade and immigration. I'm interested in your thoughts. My take, after reading the first third of the book, is that he tends to oversimplify complicated issues. He also contradicts himself by offering opposing motivations of the "rich". For instance, if allowing more foreign-trained physicians would lower health costs, as Baker surmises, then why aren't the greedy capitalist business owners who pay the healthcare costs of their employees clamoring for more lax immigration policies for internationally trained doctors?

In fact, over 25% of the physicians currently practicing in the US are graduates of foreign medical schools; does Baker think that number should be 50%, 75%, 100%? In fact, foreigners make up a greater number of physicians than almost any other profession in the US, taxi drivers notwithstanding. If we are going to allow barrier-free immigration for physicians, then I suppose we are going to do the same for lawyers, chemists, teachers, economists and organic chemists as well. How many professionals should we allow in? A million? Ten million? 100 million? At some point we merely become a nation without borders, without sovereignty.

Baker would have a stronger argument if he supported opening more US medical schools or training more specialist surgeons to increase the competition, which economic law of supply and demand would seem to dictate lower salaries and lower costs. Unfortunately, studies show that if more surgeons practice in a given community, then more surgery overall is performed, even if the per capita number of cases declines. More doctors often leads to more healthcare expense. Just as having both a Wal-Mart and a Meijer store in town doesn’t mean that people will buy less televisions and toasters, having more doctors does not mean that people will access medical care any less.

It may seem I'm merely reacting to Baker's assault on the US medical system and his affectation for bemoaning the high salaries of US physicians, but I'm not. I have always been an advocate for a single payer system, or at least a single payment system, which could ensure better access to care for all at a controllable cost. This would surely provide the tools to decrease the total compensation paid to US physicians, but could lower the most highly paid specialists the most and spare those who provide primary care. In medicine, generalists make far less than subspecialty surgeons, with that discrepancy growing larger and larger. Salaries in medicine mirror the growing dichotomy in the US socioeconomic structure in general, with the rich getting richer and the "poor" just getting by. Just as in any economic system such large differences in wealth lead to class struggle and, as Marx and Engels point out, instability and warfare.

Another point I'll add: Baker keeps confusing immigration with free-trade. Restricting immigration is much different than restricting free trade. While US citizens may not be able to "enjoy the benefits” of having a horde of low-priced foreign-trained doctors rooting around their bellies at their local hospitals, these same citizens are more than free to travel to Mexico or Guatemala for their hysterectomy. Interestingly, that is happening to some degree with hospitals operating in Costa Rica and parts of SE Asia that cater to wealthy Americans and Australians, respectively. These hospitals are often staffed with well-trained nurses and doctors, but operate very cheaply because of the lack of expensive regulation and malpractice insurance. Caveat emptor.

In sum, the provision of healthcare is an extremely complicated economic model that even the venerable economist Peter Drucker couldn't solve. To think that simply opening our borders to every foreign doctor with a diploma would solve the problem is laughably glib. Would flooding the US market with foreign-trained physicians lower doctors' salaries? Certainly. But would it lead to lower healthcare costs? Never. And better quality? Ha! Is US healthcare in trouble? Yes. Does Dean Baker have the answer? Hardly.

Looking forward to finishing the ebook and engaging a more thorough discussion.

Why I am a non-theist...

..or, why I'll never be president.

Ok, I've given this a lot of thought, even more reflection and have come to a heartfelt conclusion: I am an atheist. It's not something that one decides, but rather something that one discovers. If an examined life is not worth living, then my examination has determined that god-belief is not worth wasting one's life on-- and may even be dangerous.

Sam Harris' latest book "The End of Faith" is an excellent diatribe against liberal monotheism, stating that such tolerance for irrationality by modern, thinking homo sapeins just acts to feed the inane and destructive institutions buiilt around religious belief.

Islam is the latest deadly iteration of violence in the name of religion, but Jews and Christians are just as guilty of fueling the hate game based on silly fantasies regarding god-belief. The historic atrocities done in support of Judeo-Christianity are exponentially worse. The world is becoming a smaller, more dangerous place with nuclear proliferation and WMD's becoming more available, and the human community cannot afford to perpetuate divisive, and often deadly, irrationality any longer.

Of course, this is not to say that profound wisdom is absent from the great religions. On the contrary, the Bible, Tibetan Book of the Dead, and I Ching (all texts I have become familiar with to varying degrees) contain fundamental truths that are presented in understandable ways, although they are often targeted to their specific cultural group. We must read these texts in the light of our knowledge of science and experience, and try to understand the political and social motivations present at the time of their writing.

Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Plato's Dialogues likewise contain fundamental truths, only without the baggage of irrational fantasy. We must face the fact that a huge ark was not built by a 500 year-old man to save the world's animal species. Science does not support re-incarnation or resurrection. Mohammed and Moses did not converse with God to bring the Word to the people.

We as a human community do not have the luxury of ignoring rationality anymore. We must finally fully wake up to the idiocy of believing in sky wizards, magic and miracles, and we must especially see the dangers of believing our fantasies are somehow more informed than theirs.

All god-believers, but perhaps especially the reality-based liberals who should know better, need to come to terms with this.

Our planet depends on it.

My latest letter to Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mi)

To the Honorable Fred Upton:

I’ll take the Constitution, thank you. You are my representative and I am asking you to either explain the actions and policies of this president, or act to rid us of him.

I’m not sure what the motivation of the Bush administration has been. He says he’s protecting freedom, yet he ignores the fourth amendment. He says he supports the troops and clandestine services, yet he leaks the identity of a CIA operative for political purposes.

I trust the Constitution. I don’t trust George W. Bush. I cannot know Bush’s motives, and frankly I don’t give a damn why he does the idiotic things he does. I didn’t vote for him and wish he had never come out of his Texas backwater. He is the chief executive charged with enforcing the Constitution and he is not doing it.

I have elected representatives who are charged with checking and balancing the president when he is negligent or incompetent. Do it. The administration must be called to answer for the travesties of unnecessary war, raging federal deficits, buildings falling down, governmental incompetence, personal irresponsibility, war profiteering, lying, no-bid contracts, cherry-picked intelligence, “thousands” of tactical military errors, etc, etc.

We’ve had enough and our country is at stake. Now the time is over for negotiation and deliberation. If my elected officials will not call out this administration and this buffoon of a president, then who will?

We have a Constitution that provides remedies for these criminally negligent policies and actions. Mr. Upton, I know you are a Republican, and despite that character flaw you earned my vote the last two election cycles mainly because I (perhaps foolishly) believed that one should vote for the man and not the party.

Dig deep, Mr. Upton, and do the right thing. Act to impeach this hollow fart of a man before he damages this nation further. You are my representative, do what is best for your constituency. Impeach him. Or explain to me why not.

(Signed)

"My sheep hear my voice..."

and I know them, and they will follow." John 10:27.


From the Cunning Realist:

A striking exchange from President Bush's Q+A session with an audience in Charlotte, North Carolina on Thursday:

Q: You never stop talking about freedom, and I appreciate that. But while I listen to you talk about freedom, I see you assert your right to tap my telephone, to arrest me and hold me without charges, to try to preclude me from breathing clean air and drinking clean water and eating safe food. If I were a woman, you'd like to restrict my opportunity to make a choice and decision about whether I can abort a pregnancy on my own behalf. You are --

THE PRESIDENT: I'm not your favorite guy. Go ahead. (Laughter and applause.) Go on, what's your question?

Q: Okay, I don't have a question. What I wanted to say to you is that I -- in my lifetime, I have never felt more ashamed of, nor more frightened by my leadership in Washington, including the presidency, by the Senate, and --

AUDIENCE MEMBERS: Booo!

THE PRESIDENT: No, wait a sec -- let him speak.

Q: And I would hope -- I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common sense have been left far behind during your administration, and I would hope from time to time that you have the humility and the grace to be ashamed of yourself inside yourself.

History's proven that the greatest danger to a nation sometimes is not a wayward leader, but the unthinking masses desperate to surrender freedom to someone---anyone---promising to "protect" them. It's during those times that the individual's most lethal enemy is not his government, but his next-door neighbor.

Instead of "booo," the audience at the president's event might just as well have bleated "baaahhh."

-- Cunning Realist

Artwork attribution: Millie Ballance, who is not responsible for the editorial content.