Sympathy For The Devil?

The pithily titled Midwest Towns Sour on War as Their Toll Mounts provides some brief but intimate portraits of small-town folks coming to grips with the fact that the scion’s of their communities are coming home dead from an adventure they supported and even encouraged.

Retired electrician Bob Peck voted twice for Bush […] Peck would not vote for him again, even if he could.
Woody Marshall, a Vietnam War-era Navy veteran, described his own evolution as he trained his gaze on an elegantly stitched tapestry of a smiling Aaron Sissel in a VFW corridor. At first, he was "thrilled" that U.S.-led troops toppled Saddam Hussein and his tyrannical government.

(snip)

Like so many Tipton residents who saw the war delivered like an unwelcome package when the cortege passed, Pelzer realized that it took her son's death for her to focus on the war.

So where’s the counterpoint in this article, the “balance” we expect?

Where, for instance, is GOP representative Ann Coulter’s typical grief-counselor perspective? Strangely absent it seems.

How about a quote from the most famous war-widow in the US, Cindy Sheehan? Or the next-most famous, Mrs. Tillman?
There’s no mention of any effort to contact them for their view—perhaps the apparent reticence is due the intimate focus of the article and to introduce such “celebrities” into the story might detract from its essential tale.

The six weeks since have been a fog, she [Dixie Pelzer] said, an initiation into a parallel world occupied by the families of the 3,611 U.S. troops who have died in Iraq.

How about some quotes from those parents of the 3,611 who were actually opposed to the war-- not just from fear for their own sons and daughters lives but also from fear of the larger meaning and consequences of Bush’s and the Republican’s rabid and predictably destructive policies?

There is no time or column inches for them apparently; perhaps they aren’t victims the way these grieving staunch, twice-voting, moral, god-fearing family-values Republicans are.

No, there’s no sympathy for the anti-family, pro-abortion, homosexual-loving, tree-hugging, liberal, Democrat, immoral god-haters who opposed the war from the beginning and were branded traitors and lunatics by those who now bury their blind, bloodied and ignorant faith in the ground and weep over the bitter harvest they have sown.

Our sympathies should be with them for their personal loss, and they always have been from the beginning. But from them, to those liberal Democrat strangers who feared for others lives and railed in opposition of their likely waste have been called traitors and ghouls delighting in death by the champions of war and yet it seems no sympathy for the victimization of sage oppnents even now. is worthy of record.

Even now it seems there’s still no sympathy for the humanistic, altruistic, liberal “Devil”.

NOTE: I appreciate there are technical editorial contsraints on any story, but has anyone yet seen an MSM article or report anywhere that sympathetically adresses the pains of those who have lost their sons and daughters for a cause they knew was false but suffered the same sacrifice (or perhaps worse), despite their vehement oppostion?

Bush Budget

http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/budget/2008/

"My plan reduces the national debt, and fast. So fast, in fact, that economists worry that we're going to run out of debt to retire." —George W. Bush, radio address, Feb. 24, 2001

In 2001 the US had a $128-billion surplus. Bush’s super-fast national debt reduction plan turned that into a $157-billion deficit by 2002. In other words he spent $285 billion to give me and millions like me a $300 refund (or about 85-cents a day extra).

“Tomorrow I'm going to talk about the size of the deficit. I'm not going to guess what that will be, but I can predict it's going to be substantially lower than it was three years ago.” ---George Bush July 12, 2007. Ohio.

Three years ago the deficit was 412 billion against a $100-billion drop in federal receipts since 2001.
From 2004 to 2005 the deficit dropped significantly from $412-billion to $318-billion. From 2005 to 2006 it dropped to $248-billion.
For 2007 the deficit is estimated to be $244-billion.
By 2012 George insists that the US will have a surplus again, of $61-billion

UPDATE: These figures of ACTUAL deficits and surplus from Page 13
http://www.cbo.gov/budget/historical.pdf
for the benefit of anyone who thinks I might use invented statistics to make my arguments.

Now this is all very complicated stuff, I’m no economist and George Bush is a complete clod BUT….

From 2001 to 2003 we went from a surplus of $128-billion to a deficit of $377-billion (total $505-billion). Of that we can assume say $100-billion for Iraq and Afghanistan and $285-billion for tax-cuts which are the extraordinary expenditures of the period. That leaves $120-billion of “miscellaneous expenses” (assuming national debt repayment didn’t change).

Now Bush’s Budget mid-session review says (emphasis added):

“This Budget improves the timeliness and specificity of the information provided to Congress and the American public about the cost of the war"

No it doesn’t; in as much as I couldn’t find anything that referred specifically to Afghanistan or Iraq.

“It shows the full cost of the war through the rest of the President’s term –and also provides detailed justifications.”

Again, no it doesn’t (as far as I could tell) though it does project increasing the DoD budget from it’s current $485-billion (-ish) to over $600-billion by 2012. (Oh, and we’ve heard all the justifications for war and they have been and are, all bullshit).

Given that there is zero chance that oil prices will [edit-only continue to rise-edit] drop (especially as the US continues to drag its feet on energy efficiency) it makes sense that Government expenditures will rise. But so will consumer costs, yet Bush somehow expects ‘reciepts’ ( otherwise known as income taxes) to rise without raising taxes—which he is totally agin’. He also has no plans to increase the tax “burden” on big business, so how will “receipts” rise? By the public paying more for taxed goods and services I assume.

And let’s not forget that Bush originally asked for something like $70 billion to get the Iraq War over and done with in one year with Iraqi oil revenues and a new free-market economy there expected to pay for the peaceful reconstruction.
These “supplemental” requests have increased each year (with every “success”) and now he’s asking for around $130-billion! Part of this increase has to do with the doubling of oil prices that his invasion has triggered and the occupation has sustained!

Add to this the assertion that “It shows the full cost of the war through the rest of the President’s term” which means he has no intention of bringing US forces home before he leaves office (but we all know that anyway). So for 2008 he’ll be asking for probably another $150-billion whilst the ‘receipts’ continue to decrease because the cost of living will continue to increase and the corporate world will maintain profits by passing increased costs to consumers and cut jobs whilst retaining their rebates and tax advantages—as long as Bush remains in power.

So where will the savings come from to drive down the deficit? Bush’s ass and our hides I reckon.

Harry Potter and the Enormous Pile of Political Cash

At the railway station of national politics there appear to be just two trains one can catch---the Republican Zephyr and the Democrat Local.

But unknown to the regular muggle passengers (many of whom seem to pick the wrong train, no matter what) there is another, invisible platform where sits a train waiting patiently to transport those with the gift to see it, to a place of mystery and wonder.

I am of course talking about the Hogwash Express which leaves Platform 9-3/4 % every four years, destination: The Third-Party School Of Magical Politics.

Every four years the school spontaneously burns to the ground and then, Phoenix-like rises from the ashes, re-invigorated, and sets out to challenge political reality with spells and incantations and promises of a new broomstick that will sweep away the cobwebs and dust-bunnies of complacency and banish the soul-stealing status quo to some prison tower, never to be released again.

But rather than increase enrollment with the usual parlor tricks, this semester The Third-Party School Of Magical Politics has created a muggle version of the Mirror of Erised with a new website mysteriously named Unity08 (I’m pretty sure if you jumble the letters and numbers you get to see a unicorn or something).

At this mystic portal ordinary muggles can “vote” for a presidential “ticket” compromising one Democrat and one Republican that will form their desired “dream team” for unity, one destined to confound the traditional party system and usher in a new era where for once politics won’t give you a pounding headache.

As Jim VandeHei of the Washington Post reports, the founders of Unity08 don’t want to create a “Third Party” but instead want to “force Democrats and Republicans to revamp themselves by becoming more issue-focused, responsive and candid.”

"What we are trying to do is to create a forum for people who are in the middle who have been left out of politics."

To accomplish these goals Untity08 is inviting disaffected ‘centrist’ voters, especially the “young”, to bypass the traditional party structures and selection process and choose their own Presidential and Vice-Presidential ticket via an internet ‘ballot’ with the only nod to reality being that one should be a Democrat and one a Republican.

Their theory is that most Americans are fed up with both parties, a belief backed by recent polling data, and are eager to shake up the political process if they can find an outlet.

Noting that about 85 percent of Americans use the Internet, Rafshoon [a Unity08 founder] said that "they can't all be extremists. There has got to be room out there for us."

These old political consultants running Unity08 can’t be this stupid and clueless about how presidential elections actually work.

I think they are just cynically trying to siphon- off cash from what will be a record season for public discontent and political spending. They only need to persuade 2-3% of the electorate to donate to score a few million dollars for themselves.

The Harry Potter fantasy is an original work of entertainment that has provided an unexpected and broad benefit.

The fantasy these Unity08 jokers are offering appears to me to be an unoriginal exploitation of reality with absolutely no benefit to anyone except its founders.

Check out their site here and judge for yourselves.

Patriot Games

It seems there is a surge of patriotism (or what passes for it these days) in various state legislatures and Minnesota in particular, which has just passed a bill requiring local government to officially use only US-sourced Stars and Stripes instead of imported ones.

“The biggest honor that you can give the flag is that it be made by American workers in the United States of America. Nothing is more embarrassing to me than a plastic flag made in China. This replica of freedom we so respect should be made in this country."

So said Minnesota House Democrat, Tom Rukavina, the bill’s sponsor.

Republican Rep. Dan Severson didn’t agree, arguing:

“That flag should be made throughout the world because it is our message to the world that there is hope for freedom and justice.”

Looking-out for American workers is a major plank of the Democratic Party platform whilst sheer jingoism and a sense of manifest destiny has become a Republican trademark so these representatives’ positions seem consistent with their party politics and policies.

Yet they still appear to be reversed from the “norm”--after all it’s the Democrat slighting the Chinese “plastic” flags and the Republican expressing a more “nuanced” global view (though on the other hand the Republican by implication is supporting outsourcing).

Regardless of the real and imagined ramifications of their respective positions on this new legislation, I’d say that beneath it all they do share a common perspective seemingly apropos to a nation that bears the word United in its name”--they are both united in a fantasy where nostalgic symbolism trumps reality.

Restoring the manufacture of the flag to its country of origin is nothing compared to restoring its original meaning, and no amount of arbitrary local legislation can do that.

Independence Day?

231 years ago, Americans rose up to claim freedom from the tyranny of a dictator wielding a massive military and a government oblivious to the rights of the common man.

No longer would they tolerate the appointed monarch, George, financing imperial ambitions in far-off lands from American taxes, nor suffer the intrusions of government agents and arbitrary rulings of George and his representatives, nor permit the promotion of politically and religiously connected cronies to act and govern in their own self-interest.

My, how far we have come since then!!

In Which I May Well Be a Jolly Good “Fellow”

To quote the Brookings Institution:

"For policy-makers and the media, Brookings scholars provide the highest quality research, policy recommendations, and analysis on the full range of public policy issues.
More than 140 resident and nonresident scholars research issues; write books, papers, articles, and opinion pieces; testify before congressional committees; and participate in dozens of public events each year. Over 200 research assistants and support staff contribute to the Institution's research, publishing, communications, fundraising, and information technology operations."

Bully for them! Sounds to me like it is a highly organized and well-financed cadre of dedicated and disciplined intellectuals bent on illuminating really important stuff and whatnot (and indeed it is).

I. on the other-hand, am one of those foul mouthed dirty f**king hippie bloggers that such luminaries as WashPo Ombudsman Deborah Howell and syndicated talking heads Richard Cohen, Bill O’Reilly, Charles Krauthammer and their ilk consider a threat to intelligent discourse on Subjects That Really Matter; like being respectful of privileged morons who get paid handsomely to shape public opinion and influence policy without accountability.

So it was with great interest that, (thanks to a tip from Cernig of NewsHoggers-- a regular contributor to Crooks & Liars) I was apprised of this recently-posted article by three fellows of the prestigious Brookings Institution entitled Why the Iraq war won't engulf the Mideast, and I quote:

“Yet, the Saudis, Iranians, Jordanians, Syrians, and others are very unlikely to go to war either to protect their own sect or ethnic group or to prevent one country from gaining the upper hand in Iraq.
The reasons are fairly straightforward. First, Middle Eastern leaders, like politicians everywhere, are primarily interested in one thing: self-preservation. Committing forces to Iraq is an inherently risky proposition, which, if the conflict went badly, could threaten domestic political stability. Moreover, most Arab armies are geared toward regime protection rather than projecting power and thus have little capability for sending troops to Iraq.” ( emphasis added)

My interest was piqued not just because this was contrary to the continued promotion of the 'conventional wisdom' of the Bush administration and its cheerleaders—even though they’ve been dead wrong in every prognostication--but because I’d read something strikingly similar and thus corroborative before, and I quote:

“The essential problem with the Republican argument [that withdrawal from Iraq will lead to region-wide chaos] is that it assumes that the political and religious dynamics in the Middle East are monolithic—which they demonstrably are not.
In all the Middle East conflicts and radical political shifts in power since WWII each country has pursued its own particular interests above anything else. Alliances and opposition have shifted according to rational need more than emotional desire.”

Both these excerpted analyses posit the same basic argument; that history, observation and dispassionate logic strongly suggest that the right wing and the Republicans are most probably wrong (for the umpteenth time) in their public prognostications. The Middle East is not monolithic and it is not bent on a collective course. It is in fact the fractures within its arbitrary collective rather than its commonalities that determine its political course (as is the case in the US and Europe).

But here’s what is most interesting to me about this subject:

The first quoted analysis was authored by three fellows of a professional think-tank supported by a staff of several hundred salaried colleagues and researchers.

The second quoted analysis was authored by me, a foul-mouthed dirty f**king hippie degenerate uneducated narcissistic blogger (not sure who to attibute that to)…FIVE MONTHS before the Brookings Institution Fellows got around to reaching the same conclusion.

My particular effort took about 4 hours of unpaid and concerted research which I didn’t link-to or footnote because otherwise my post would have been essentially unreadable.

Now I don’t mean to criticize the Brookings Institution for being slow off-the-mark, our respective timing regarding addressing the same subject is not necessarily relevant. But I think I can reasonably point out that by this example that critical thinking, intellectual discipline and pertinent commentary is not the exclusive domain of a self-validating and elite club.

This “concurrence” of analysis and opinion proves nothing with regard to the complementary arguments that have been made—time may prove us wrong—but it does strongly suggest in this instance at least that public status and social elevation has nothing to do with the essential validity of an argument.

I may be a foul-mouthed dirty f**king hippie degenerate narcissistic blogger but I think I can reasonably claim to have kicked the well funded, highly-resourced and reasonalby-respected Brookings Institution in the ass on this particular subject by dint of reaching the same conclusions FIVE MONTHS earlier and certainly with no more effort (and likely less), FOR FREE!!!

I should ask them for a job.

Admittedly the qualification is slim, but look at how well those who have been consisently and significantly wrong are doing! I think I'd make a jolly good fellow!

Blogtopia

Blogs are like opinions; everyone is an asshole…no wait, that’s not right…let me blame an overzealous imaginary “staffer” for that little gaffe, and start again.

Err-hmmm….

I try to avoid ‘blog-roll bloat’. Not that there’s anything wrong with a really long blog-roll, I just prefer to keep mine pretty short so I’m slow to add to it (I can always use others longer blog-rolls). But I have just added a new entry, The Newshoggers, and I’d recommend my guests to visit.

It has four quite prodigious contributors, and a simple layout with a very handy 'Label' subject search . The posts are smart, concise, wide-ranging, engaging and pointedly referenced. I know at least two of the bloggers have been guests on Crooks & Liars more than once so that speaks volumes I think. So check it out.

American Idiot

The US may be running-out of decent jobs, uncontaminated food, clean rivers and international goodwill, but one thing it still has plenty-of, is idiots. And not just ordinary idiots, but idiots with influence and power:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discrimination on the basis of race.”

That is the learned opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts regarding the larger context of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking-down mandated racial diversity in Kentucky public schools. (h/t Teaghan’s Mom)

Boy, Chief Justice Roberts works really hard for his $260,000-something a year, doesn’t he?

Roberts also just decided that the phrase “Bong Hits 4 Jesus”, despite being “cryptic", could also “reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use" --and thus I suppose the equivalent of incitement to riot, or murder, or the overthrow of the government?

I would have thought that the way to stop encouraging illegal drug use through cryptic phrases would be to stop encouraging illegal drug use through cryptic phrases, rather than “legislating from the bench”.

Moving on, you’d think the military, especially one engaged in combat, would be the last place you’d find an idiot in charge, wouldn’t you?
You would? Well then, you’re an idiot! (and you too could be a General!)

General Peter Pace: “What’s most important is do the Iraqi people feel better about today than they did about yesterday, and do they think tomorrow’s going to be better than today?”

A few weeks ago an ABC/BBC poll found that 82 percent of Iraqis “lack confidence” in coalition forces and 69 percent said coalition forces make “the security situation worse.”
When asked if he actually knew how the Iraqi people currently feel about the U.S. occupation of Iraq Pace conceded “I do not have that in my head.”

It has been noted that more votes are cast on American Idol than in Presidential elections.

In six years US economic growth has dropped to half that of major European nations, its debt and deficits are at record levels and still increasing. 5 million have been added to the official poor. No new jobs have been created. Personal bankruptcy has increased.

Infant mortality has increased, longevity decreased. Food is increasingly contaminated. The cost of living has increased, real wages decreased. New Orleans still lies in ruins. The US has been fighting two wars collectively for 5 years without progress. International terrorism has quadrupled. The US is now viewed as a threat to nations, not a benefactor.

The right to trial and the presentation of evidence has been rescinded. Kidnapping and torture is policy. Domestic spying is policy. Justice serves politics, not the people.
Public property is made private. Private companies have more rights than individuals and are permitted to operate outside the law.

Money is “free speech” and corporations write the laws. Voting is a business not a right. Government is by some people for some people with liberty for a few. The President and the Vice-President, empowered by the people do not answer to the people.

How did this happen...to America?!

What are you; an idiot?

Stupid is as Stupid Does

Newsweek wonders why the US public is poorly informed. These same-week covers might provide a clue.

According to the latest Newsweek poll "…as many as four in ten Americans (41 percent) still believe Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11, even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection.”

Newsweek finds this result rather surprising. Why the considerable and continuing ignorance?

Well, consider Newsweek’s bemused and passive reportorial tone---“…even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection”---as if the “evidence” simply failed to show up due to unforeseen circumstances.

The fact is that Cheney above-all knowingly and repeatedly pushed this false connection in television interviews and even after some responsible newspaper journalists had thoroughly debunked the claims, Cheney (and his surrogates) were allowed to re-iterate the lies with absolute authority and without clear refutation (that means you, Timmeh!).

Repetition by the Administration and its op-ed proxies of this false assertion and the failure of much of the media to corroborate the claim allowed the myth to become 'conventional wisdom'. And even when questioned on the claim the liars were allowed to repackage the story whilst maintaining the content and again much of the media let the new lies pass with little or no comment.

If simple repetition gives strength to lies, then the repetition of truth should give strength to actual truth. But the MSM has been all too willing to engage in the former, and not the latter.

Here’s what Newsweek could (and should) have written instead:

"…as many as four in ten Americans (41 percent) still believe Dick Cheney’s false public assertions that Saddam Hussein’s regime was directly involved in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11, even though Cheney had absolutely no evidence to support his definitive claims as he made his case to justify the now 4-year old Iraq war.”

Newsweek’s bemused surprise at the respondents’ ignorance is as much an indictment of the majority of the media as it is the fault of a lazy public—after all it is the media that provides the bulk of our current-affairs information.

If Newsweek knows that the Hussein/9-11 “connection” is bullshit why don’t they actually call it bullshit? Maybe it’s because they’d be calling bullshit on themselves.

Over a Barrel

The SMART ForTwo. 60 MPG. Sold in Europe, Canada and Mexico sonce 2001. Now re-engineered for improved stability and safety and arriving in the US in 2008, courtesy of Mercedes.

Thirty-two years ago Congress enacted the Corporate Average Fuel Economy bill to force US auto manufacturers to increase fuel-efficiency in response to the early- to mid- 1970s’ oil crises (over the objections of Big Auto of course).

Now the Senate is working on new legislation and once again the US auto-industry lobbyists are putting up a fight, using much the same arguments as they did 32–years ago:

Increasing fuel efficiency will cost too much! Cars will have to be made lighter so they won’t be as-safe and people will die! Workers will lose jobs! It can’t be done!

The auto-makers aren’t entirely wrong, but it’s not the fault of legislation. It’s their fault.

Take the latest “retro-cool” Mustang (that Ford hoped would be as a big a success as the original). The base version uses an iron SOHC fuel-injected 4-liter V6 that provides 210 HP and delivers (supposedly) 19-28 MPG. It still uses a live rear axle, just like the 1964 original (even the super-performance Shelby 500 version Cobra has the same axle)

The “retro-cool” MINI Cooper S however uses a DOHC aluminum 1.6 Liter fuel-injected turbocharged 4-cylinder producing 172 HP and 177 Ft.lbs of torque) and reaches 60 MPH in practically the same time as the Mustang but delivers (supposedly) 29-36 MPG—thanks to it’s modern and efficient engineering.

The US auto industry has had 30 years to read the writing on the wall—that smart engineering resulting in efficiency, quality and reliability sells just as well as styling---but they stuck to styling and left others to advance the engineering, even as they continually lost market share.

The one thing Big Auto could take comfort in and profits from was the SUV market, which true to form didn’t require any engineering effort on their part—just styling and marketing. The “safety” argument for SUV’s (that if you hit a smaller vehicle you’ll survive and the others won’t) has lost its appeal in the face of rapidly rising gas prices. Fuel efficiency is the biggest concern now.

Ford has attempted to address this with their Escape Hybrid (engineered by Mazda, by the way) but it costs $3000-more than the Prius whilst delivering 20-less MPG. You can’t go off-roading in a Prius but how many people go off-roading anyway? Ford’s hybrid isn’t even outselling the regular Escape (despite its vastly superior MPG).

With fuel economy increasingly important (and even critical) to many consumers the Big Three have nothing of their own to offer, whereas the Japanese are responding with more hybrids as well as with conventionally-powered economy cars like the Scion, the Fit, and the Yaris—which are incidentally also cheap enough for the increasingly beleaguered working class to reasonably afford.

And now even Mercedes, that icon of luxury and wealth, thinks the time is right for the absolute antithesis of the traditional American automotive philosophy of "bigger is better" with the 2008 introduction to the US of the 60 Mpg SMART ForTwo.

Whether the SMART will actually turn a profit in the US is anyone’s guess:
It hasn’t made a profit in Europe yet (thanks in large-part to the vast range of cheap and efficient four-seat alternatives) but even in a market where small is both the norm and an advantage in both town and country the truly tiny SMART has still been very popular and practical.

The original Mini was unnecessarily small and economical for the general US market when it was introduced in the 60’s. But the US learned to love smaller cars in the 70’s and thirty years later the technologically advanced and relatively efficient new MINI continues to sell very well whilst. for instance, the technologically-challenged and inefficient (and newer) Mustang has already seen a 20% drop in sales this year.

If “free market forces” really worked as the Friedmans of this world insist they do (or should) then the Big Three would have spontaneously responded to the 70’s oil crises with more-efficient (and better-engineered and more reliable) “all-American” vehicles. But even when increased efficiency was mandated by the government Big Auto influenced the CAFÉ legislation so that all the effort to improve efficiency could-be and was outsourced—resulting in layoffs of American auto workers.

The Prius was introduced to the Japanese market in 1997 and in a more refined version to the US in 2001. The MINI likewise was developed in the late 1990’s and debuted in 2001. The SMART also entered the market in Europe as a 2001 model. All of these were thus on the road before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq that has significantly contributed to the current fuel crisis.

US auto makers found themselves “over a barrel” in the 70’s, by accident. Thirty years later they are again “over a barrel”, but this time by their own design—or rather a willful lack of design. When it was founded the US had reason to claim and shape the future, but in a remarkably short span it is now "over a barrel"--literally and figuratively--and the current plight of the US auto industry and thier current protestations over the new legistlation is a salient example of the attitudes of this nation's elite self-serving, myopic, out-of-touch and whining elite.