Evict Bush!

Saturday, November 23, 2002  

Following in the footsteps of Dick Armey, Bob Barr now plans to consult with the ACLU in the ever more popular campaign to secure individual privacy rights and civil liberties. A positive development to be sure, but I haven't ruled it out as a precursor to the end of the world as we know it. Then again, the world as we know it could use... (wanders off, muttering)

Nat Hentoff chronicles growing nationwide dissatisfaction with attacks on personal liberties, drawing growing support from both sides of the political spectrum.

...More Americans are becoming aware of what Wisconsin Democratic senator Russ Feingold prophesied from the Senate floor on October 11, 2001, when he was the only Senator to vote against Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act: "There is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists. If we lived in a country where police were allowed to search your home at any time for any reason; if we lived in a country where the government is entitled to open your mail, eavesdrop on your phone conversations, or intercept your e-mail communications; if we lived in a country where people could be held in jail indefinitely based on what they write or think, or based on mere suspicion that they are up to no good, the government would probably discover more terrorists or would-be terrorists, just as it would find more lawbreakers generally. But that wouldn't be a country in which we would want to live." ...

As then house majority leader Dick Armey—a conservative Republican libertarian—told Georgetown University law professor Jeffrey Rosen in the October 21 New Republic: "The Justice Department . . . seems to be running amok and out of control. . . . This agency right now is the biggest threat to personal liberty in the country." ...

One notes, however that Armey didn't do much to organize resistance to these issues before they were passed into law, and most Democrats didn't do any better. If our politicians are ever going to grow backbones, their constituents need to speak out on these subjects in no uncertain terms. Check out the Bill of Rights Defense Committee website, as mentioned in the article, to find out how to get your town organized.

In the BBC today:

Hong Kong study indicates immediate health benefits from reduction of air pollution. While their pollution is extreme, doctors and scientists in all industrialized countries have seen alarming increases over the years in asthma and other respiratory conditions.

A forthcoming paper from researchers at Microsoft suggests that the recording industry's attempts to prevent digital file swapping are 'doomed to failure' unless they make legal music cheap and easy to get. The article points out that the recent slump in CD sales could have also been caused by rising costs, noting that the industry was recently fined in court for price fixing.

Bush welcomes new NATO members by rallying them for a fight in Iraq. You would think that perhaps they had other concerns, like maybe jobs, or something.

Curfew in Nigeria after the violence over the Miss World pageant has caused thousands to flee from their homes.

South Koreans are furious after a second US soldier is cleared of all charges related to the deaths of two school girls who were run over by a 50-ton military vehicle.

Thousands of Taiwanese farmers protest agricultural reform of a sort that wouldn't be tolerated in either the US or EU.

America investigates Saudi 9-11 connections. Now they mention it.

Israel admits responsibility for the shooting death of a senior UN aid worker. Mr. Hook had been trying to arrange the evacuation of his team, a group whose purpose was the rebuilding of Palestinian homes demolished in Israeli incursions.

Iran reaches low, rolling boil.

Michael Neumann speaks about moral equivalence.

...In that case, killing children from the air, unenthusiastically but with full foreknowledge, is no better than shooting them from three feet away. That the pilot and the commander are full of love for children, and couldn't bear harming them, is not good. It's bad. It means that these killers have found in their feelings a way to believe themselves much better than they are. And this goes not only for the commanders and the pilots, but also for the kind-hearted voters who put them there. (And please, let's not exaggerate our kindness. We love it when our side wins, and we don't cry about the bodies it has blown apart.) Today it may be more dangerous to tolerate nice killers of some invisible child or other down there, than to tolerate the killers whose child victims cower before them. ...

Of course it is not just the threat that counts; it's your alternatives in responding to it. What should the Palestinians do? March? Strike? Vote? Pray? Negotiate? Dialogue? Reach out? Been tried, got nowhere. Take on the Israeli army with slingshots? Been tried, got nowhere. Wait for world opinion to turn the tide? World opinion counts for less than nothing without US opinion, that engine of compassion which sputters while peoples go down to destruction. ...

Columbia's president urges Americans and Europeans to prove they are serious about the war on drugs by submitting to mass testing. He suggested that our CEOs and other executives go first. Columbians have been embroiled in a decades long civil war funded by drug money, and have been on the receiving end of various loving attentions by the US military. The disastrous and indiscriminate pesticide sprayings of recent years are only the latest indignity.

Al Gore on Larry King Live, commenting on the new Homeland Security Department and the proposed Information Awareness Office. In part:

A. GORE: ...While making it a cabinet department is a good thing, and many other features of that bill are excellent, I am growing more and more concerned about the violations of individual privacy that are contained in the current draft.

KING: Like?

A. GORE: Well, they have a plan that this guy, Admiral Poindexter has been put in charge of in the Pentagon -- you know, he was the one in the Iran Contra business. It's called Total Information Awareness, and if carried out, this plan would empower the government to collect information on every citizen of the United States and keep it there, and then in the discretion of somebody in the administration, they could use it or not use it, presumably because they were simply focused on countering the terrorism threat.

But fear can cause people to make mistakes, and fear can cause great nations to make mistakes, and just yesterday, the news came out this morning of this secret court dramatically changing the standards for wiretapping American citizens, and giving the Justice Department the right to go in and use a much weaker standard to listen in on conversations. What in the world are they doing here?

KING: Couldn't they say -- I don't want to speak for them -- the fear is warranted?

A. GORE: Well, the fear -- the fear is warranted, but the remedy needs to be matched to the threat. And see, what is -- the objective of terrorists is to destroy our way of life. We should not give them part of their victory by destroying important parts of our own way of life.

And a right to privacy is a part of every American's right. And this whole -- you know, for many years going back to George Orwell and before, there have been these warnings that the new technologies of communication and wiretapping and everything create the possibility of a Big Brother-type state, and we've always pushed that away and said, No, we want nothing like that in the U.S. We will cast our lot with free speech and openness and the rights of the individual.

And now, step by step, we're actually getting into a situation where some of the things they're contemplating would take us big steps down the road to a Big Brother-type approach. I think there ought to be a lot of resistance to this. I think it -- that part of it ought to be defeated overwhelmingly. ...

Thanks to Atrios, we get this. I just don't know what to say. Click the picture to be taken to the full size image, courtesy of Mad Magazine.

Chris Floyd is overjoyed by Bush's mandate for an extremist agenda.

And Zeynep Toufe wonders if people would care more about Middle Eastern children if they were made of very old stone. Also, Toufe includes one of my favorite quotations of all time:

It has been reported that when a journalist asked Mahatma Gandhi what he thought about Western Civilization, he replied, "it would be a good idea."

Paul Krugman maintains that US society has become more stratified, even as we espouse more populism.

The defenders of our environment over at the EPA will now be easing pollution standards for new power plants. We'll all be breathing easier now. Maybe we can aspire nationwide to the high standards of Los Angeles, CA, where just being born and raised there decreases your lung capacity by 10-15%. In case some were unaware, Los Angeles is a big reason why California is permitted to set it's own emissions standards, and other states may choose either the federal or the CA standard to follow.

Sacramento judge sends message to Justice Department: Stop Interfering With California Law. The conservative judge appointed by Reagan ruled that since it is now the law of the state of California that medical marijuana may be offered by doctors and hospices, the feds need to back off. Let's see if they listen. More importantly, let's see if the Republican party can be taken back someday by people who don't want to meddle in every damn thing.

Starting what he hopes will be an 'ideas primary', Senator John Edwards proposes to expand funding for college. Not a bad idea, could help turn out both the young vote, and the bill-strapped parent vote.

The conservative Cato Institute publishes this essay entitled "Does U.S. Intervention Overseas Breed Terrorism? The Historical Record."

...The numerous incidents cataloged suggest that the United States could reduce the chances of such devastating--and potentially catastrophic--terrorist attacks by adopting a policy of military restraint overseas.

They're not... blaming America, are they?

On a lighter note, The Onion highlights a disturbing trend: Muslim Groups In US May Be Developing Nuclear Families.

The Guardian chronicles the spread of violence against Americans in the Middle East with this article about a US nurse being shot dead in Lebanon. Elsewhere, 50 are killed in Nigerian rioting over the Miss World pageant, a country deeply divided between the sectarian south and the Muslim north.

Thanks to Easter Lemming, we get this link on the Myth of the Heartland, or as some would call it, red v. blue. In part:

...Economically, the "heartland" is the nation's least productive, least self-reliant, most anemic segment of the economy, the biggest gobbler of government welfare in the form of farm subsidies, the most rapacious abuser, at taxpayers' expense, of mining rights, grazing rights and water rights. As economist and columnist Paul Krugman noted recently, "blue America subsidizes red America to the tune of $90 billion or so each year." To top it off, those heartland states' murder, divorce, depression and suicide rates are higher than in "blue" states. Red-blooded conservatism has never seemed so grim, so hungry for hand-outs, so capably deluding. ...

Why should an area that represents the smaller share of both our population and economy be the 'model' of our society? Let's hear it again for the California Democrats. They've presided over unprecedented economic success while dealing with the 'specter' of immigration which seems to terrify conservatives whose parents are mysteriously not Native Americans.

The 'unrepresentative' Babylons of America (Boston, Los Angeles, New York, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, etc.) continue to generate tremendous wealth, attract talented workers, and gather a lion's share of tourism. They represent, to me, what was best about the country in the beginning. People go there to flee moralistic persecution, to exchange new ideas, and set off on radical adventures of entrepreneurship. Until people from all over the world and the country start moving to Alabama seeking new opportunities, it would be appreciated if they weren't held up as a gold standard for everyone else to imitate.

Genetic engineering set to take a big step forward in genome manipulation. The goal of this particular research product is to eventually create a bacterium that will help produce a steady supply of hydrogen as an alternative fuel source.

Military.com offers this editorial on the subject of homeland security, and this article on the shortfall of benefits promised to WWII and Korean war veterans.

The Navy Times gives its take on the recent NATO expansion. And in other military news, VOA reports that both Saudi and Kuwaiti officials are working together to apprehend a Kuwaiti policeman who shot two US soldiers and fled to Saudi Arabia.

The Arab News posts this denunciation of anti-semitism, a piece on the changing face of Saudi politics, and social conditions forcing Zambians to sell their children. This article is their coverage of yesterday's Israeli bus bombing, and here they talk about the killing of five Palestinians by Israeli soldiers.

The Democratic Underground posts this obituary for the Fourth Amendment. We can hope that it's premature, and that the amendment in question will recover from its present coma.

And the ACLU posts this piece on the new Information Awareness Office, which is just about enough to scare the pants off anyone right or left who believes that the government should continue respecting our privacy. They also discuss FBI watch lists, a form of potential harassment not subject to review or revision. Even Dick Armey is with the ACLU on the subject, and this is one 'bipartisan' issue that I wouldn't mind seeing anybody and everybody joining on to.

This article discusses the Canadian healthcare recommendations of the person charged with studying that system for over a year. He does not recommend further privatization, but I've heard a lot of people talking about the glories of private medicine recently. Especially now that Al Gore and other potential Democratic candidates are talking about moving towards a single payer system.

Lisa has been posting (check out the 11th-17th entries) on the subject of Canadian healthcare, with the complaint that waiting times have gone up, and some grandparents are worrying they won't have as much to spend on Christmas as they wanted now that they'll have to pay more for drugs. My response to that is that there are probably pretty few Canadian grandparents living on cat food so they can afford rent and medical necessities. There are probably very few of them who have to skip pills to make prescriptions last longer (which can be dangerous with some medications). Those Canadian grandkids will survive another year without the game system of their dreams.

Further, around 800,000 Americans are going to lose unemployment benefits about three days after Christmas if congress doesn't do something about it by Friday. If those people can presently afford their pricey COBRA plans, that will shortly change, and there will be another 800,000 people in this country with no coverage.

There are 30-40 million people in the US without healthcare of any kind, and a large number with very minimal care. I've heard it argued that for the sake of having Johns Hopkins, our system here is worth it. But what good does Johns Hopkins do for me? No one in my family can afford to go there.

My grandparents pay $600 a month for full coverage. They can afford it because on top of Social Security, my grandfather was a veteran, and later retired from public service when pension wasn't a dirty word. They both have diabetes, and my grandmother requires frequent care after two major surgeries. Who will take care of my generation when we arrive at retirement age, pensionless, no Social Security, and only the barest minimum of health care, the way things are going? If any of us with 401(k) plans happen to retire in a year of economic disaster like this, god help them. Because again, the most important lesson to have learned from the recent bubble is that most individuals are bad investors. Not through some inherent defect, but through lack of training and the sort of daily attention required to get familiar enough with something to do it well.

It's the oldest sales recruitment line ever, that over 90% of people retire without enough left to maintain their lifestyle. Just as your medical expenses go up. But for some reason, everybody thinks they can beat those odds. I don't know why, maybe this perverse fantasy seemingly shared by many that just living in the US may qualify you for a visit from the money fairy. But it seems to me that a society that throws people away is going to have a different and more disturbing set of problems than a society that commits themselves to ensuring that each citizen has basic care.

Small businesses would probably benefit most, as they would have more even footing when competing with corporate jobs. And that's one of the big edges that a large corporation has, the good benefits. Take that gap away, and it becomes easier for smaller outfits to compete, easier for people to strike out and start a business on their own.

But the main people who will argue against this are the insurance industry and their employees. People make a lot of money off the stuff, therefore they can have a lot of speech on the topic. Probably some of that could be soothed over by hiring much of that workforce to staff the new department, someone will have to.

Then there are the doctors. They spend a lot of money on their educations, and it's reasonable that they should make a good living. Though unless we start treating them like schoolteachers, I think it's fairly obvious that they deserve pay commensurate to the service they provide. But another useful method of compensating them would be to fund their education. While I'm in favor of broader college funding generally, if we were to nationalize medicine, we should pay for the medschool training of qualified applicants.

And even in Canada, around 30% of their healthcare is private. There would still be that rarefied market for the entrepreneurial soul trying to make a living in the health industry.

Don Arthur mentioned the subject of everyone's favorite social democracy, and how despite the fact that they are by some standards 'poorer than Mississippi', by many others they are doing fine indeed.

What it really has to do with is what you think is important in Life. Contrary to GE and some bloggers, there is more to Life than how many appliances you own. The OECD factbook indicates that the Swedes live longer than Americans. Infant mortality is much lower. A higher proportion of their population is old, hence more likely to be retired. Notwithstanding their longer life expectancy, they spend four percent of GDP less than the U.S. on health care, even though they have more doctors. That's $400 billion in U.S. terms available for stuff that is more fun to consume. They devote more of their income to education. They give away about eight times the aid the U.S. does (as a percent of gross national income). They pollute their own air (in per capita terms) much less than the U.S. does. 74 percent of their land area is wooded; the comparable figure for the U.S. is 33 percent.

In terms of the damage caused a society by inequality (and healthcare is a great unequalizer in the US), read Paul Krugman's 'For Richer'. This excerpt, pulled from the very long column, pulls us directly back to the healthcare advantage enjoyed by countries who practice socialized medicine:

...It was one of those revealing moments. Responding to an e-mail message from a Canadian viewer, Robert Novak of ''Crossfire'' delivered a little speech: ''Marg, like most Canadians, you're ill informed and wrong. The U.S. has the longest standard of living -- longest life expectancy of any country in the world, including Canada. That's the truth.''

But it was Novak who had his facts wrong. Canadians can expect to live about two years longer than Americans. In fact, life expectancy in the U.S. is well below that in Canada, Japan and every major nation in Western Europe. On average, we can expect lives a bit shorter than those of Greeks, a bit longer than those of Portuguese. Male life expectancy is lower in the U.S. than it is in Costa Rica. ...

...But the main point is that though Sweden may have lower average income than the United States, that's mainly because our rich are so much richer. The median Swedish family has a standard of living roughly comparable with that of the median U.S. family: wages are if anything higher in Sweden, and a higher tax burden is offset by public provision of health care and generally better public services. And as you move further down the income distribution, Swedish living standards are way ahead of those in the U.S. Swedish families with children that are at the 10th percentile -- poorer than 90 percent of the population -- have incomes 60 percent higher than their U.S. counterparts. And very few people in Sweden experience the deep poverty that is all too common in the United States. One measure: in 1994 only 6 percent of Swedes lived on less than $11 per day, compared with 14 percent in the U.S. ...

...And we might even offer a challenge from the other side: inequality in the United States has arguably reached levels where it is counterproductive. That is, you can make a case that our society would be richer if its richest members didn't get quite so much. ...

A massive Israeli budget cut for domestic programs looks set to increase social inequality in that country, coming along with tax breaks for the rich and increased military spending. The national dialogue seems to have been taken over by security issues, even though dire domestic issues are looming. Sound familiar?

The Christian Science Monitor discusses a growing movement to combine conservation and patriotism. In part:

...What is different this time, however, is that the calls for conservation are more bottom-up: Many come from ordinary citizens, hoping that if they speak loudly enough, their leaders will listen. And their disparate voices seem to be tapping into a very real - and unmet - need for some Americans to be asked to do their part in the war on terrorism. ...

But it almost seems to me that the failure of government officials to respond almost indicates that they don't want us to be involved, or to feel like we can personally do anything. People that thought they had a part to play in running their country and keeping it safe might, you know, demand things. They might vote. They might start... paying attention!

Bush has said that the American way of life isn't up for negotiation. Maybe if conservation and non-pollution was the American way of life, no one would suggest that it needed to be.

In the Guardian today, they have this spotlight on the Mars Society, which will soon be opening a third research station in Iceland. Mars or Bust! There's nothing like the promise of a new frontier to reshape society.

Polly Toynbee examines the current culture clash. She suggests that defining the west as a new Christendom wouldn't be nearly as effective as bringing other cultures into the benefits of secular modernity.

Also, this story about the Mediterranean oil spill. Interestingly, British conservatives have used this as an opportunity to encourage their government to be proactive about preventing such incidents near Britain and spurring the EU to do likewise. I don't suppose they'd be willing to trade conservatives with us...

As should surprise no one, the US is very close to signing a free trade deal with Singapore. That country is a temporary member of the UN Security Council, which body just unanimously passed the Iraq resolution. Apparently, this administration *has* heard of carrots.

NZZ brings us this piece about Israel's growing poverty.

From Radio Left, 84 reasons why Bush must go. A sample:

8. Cut funding by 28% for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks.

10. OK'd Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to send out letters to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting.

13. Reduced by 86% the Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.

21. Cut program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.

44. Makes sure convicted misdemeanor drug users cannot get financial aid for college, though convicted murderers can.

83. Gave the Taliban 38 MILLION in May, 2001 so that they would allow pipelines for his buddies at Enron.

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar." -- Julius Caesar

People can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. Tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism. --Herman Goering

The Guardian today:

Euroskepticism from Britain's left.

Hans Blix answers US criticism.

Matthew Engel discusses the proposed Information Awareness Department.

George Monbiot raises questions about GM food. We will keep an eye out for an activism outlet on this topic for an upcoming post.

PBS interviews Richard 'The Prince of Darkness' Perle, wherein he's quoted as saying this:

...Scoop believed that immigration was in some ways the most powerful of all the human rights because if people could vote with their feet, governments would have to acknowledge that and governments would have to make for their citizens a life that would keep them there. If you can imprison people you can do anything, but if people have the right to leave, you¹d have to create a decent society, so that was the seminal human right for Scoop...

As long as they don't come here? If Republicans have been the party of immigrants, Californians would be hard pressed to come up with any examples. I guess they're in favor of immigrants in principle, especially if it makes the enemy looks bad. They're only opposed to immigrants in the particulars, like when people come here to work for less than the minimum wage and want to enroll their kids in a public school.

...The lesson of history is that democracies don¹t initiate wars of aggression, and if we want to live in a peaceful world, then there¹s very little we can do to bring that about more effective than promoting a democracy. People who live in democratic societies don¹t like to pay for massive military machines. Democratic societies don¹t empower their executives to make unilateral decisions to plunge countries into war. Wars have been started by tyrants who have complete control and who can squander the resources of their people to build up military machines...

Yes, irony has indeed kicked up its little feet and started decomposing. If people in democratic societies don't like to pay for massive military machines, than either the public is being seriously misled about its interests, or the US is not a democracy by his lights. But no, there's a good explanation. Every time things get peaceful, and folks think about trimming the budget of a military designed to fight an empire that no longer exists, another war pops up like a sign from heaven.

Apparently, you don't really need to be a tyrant with complete control to squander the resources of the people on military adventures and wars of aggression (aka invasions, now known as either regime change or pre-emptive strikes). You just need to terrify them out of their minds and lie to them relentlessly. But hey, it beats all heck out of the public execution of dissenters, which can alarm the peasants unessecarily. If the same ends are achieved, they have at least been gentle on the folks at home.

In fact, for most of the interview, he sounds amazingly progressive and reasonable. It's only when you look at the suffering created by the policies of his ilk that you realize he's (I'm really going to enjoy using this next word) 'objectively' pro-fascist.

Courtesy of Eschaton, a great political blog.

Jon Stewart, speaking on the Nov. 18th episode of the Daily Show had the following to say about the Army's decision to fire six Arabic linguists for being gay:

...Finally, something President Bush and Osama Bin Laden can agree on. ...

...If a gay linguist provides intelligence that saves your life, does that make you gay? ...

...We're fighting a war against religious extremists. This is no time to engage in behavior that's offensive to God! ...

Talking about the new Bob Woodward book "Bush at War", this Washington Post article had this to say about the reason why Bush went to the UN:

In detailing tensions within Bush's war cabinet, the book describes Secretary of State Colin L. Powell as frequently at odds with Vice President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and struggling to establish a relationship with Bush. But it depicts Powell as determined to make his case that military action against Iraq without the help of allies could have disastrous consequences, a chance he finally got at a dinner with Bush last Aug. 5.

While the dinner has been previously reported, the book describes in detail the case Powell made -- reading from an outline on loose-leaf paper -- that the United States has to have international support against Iraq. "It's nice to say we can do it unilaterally," Powell told the president bluntly, "except you can't."

The dinner persuaded Bush to seek a resolution from the United Nations over the objections of Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Courtesy of BuzzFlash, Barry Goldwater and the ghost in the voting machines. I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks that the issue of 'corporate personhood' should be revisited. In part:

...But in 1886, the consent of the people was stolen. A bizarre distortion of the Santa Clara Supreme Court decision by the Court's reporter led to corporations claiming that they were also entitled to the human rights laid out for We, The People in the Bill of Rights and the free-the-slaves Fourteenth Amendment. They claimed, even though the Supreme Court had explicitly not ruled it, that they had won the rights of humans: corporate personhood.

Unions wouldn't get those rights (and still don't have them), nor would churches or associations or family-owned businesses, and not even governments would ever have those rights (because the Bill of Rights was explicitly intended as a weapon for fragile humans to use to hold back the potentially repressive powers inherent in any government), but corporations exclusively, the Court's reporter said, would share them with humans.

Thus, our largest corporations have now claimed the First Amendment right of free speech, and captured control of our airwaves and many of our politicians. They've claimed the Fourth Amendment right of privacy, and tell us we can't inspect their voting machines that determine the fate of our democracy. They've claimed the Fourteenth Amendment right to be free of discrimination, and tell local communities they have no right to nurture small, local businesses while "discriminating against" predatory multinational corporations. ...

Thom Hartmann is the author of "Unequal Protection: The Rise of Corporate Dominance and the Theft of Human Rights," and "The Last Hours of Ancient Sunlight." www.thomhartmann.com. This article is copyright by Thom Hartmann, but permission is granted for reprint in print or web media so long as this credit is attached.

Will the Democrats get to run General Wesley Clark in '04!? If he's planning to, he should announce it before Gore makes his decision at the end of the year. Gore's interview on 20/20 with Barbara Walters the other night seemed to indicate that he was waiting for some kind of sign from heaven.

Certainly, the current crop of likely contenders (Daschle, Gebhardt, Lieberman, etc.) really have nothing on Gore in the personality and popularity departments, they make him seem downright colorful. But I got the impression that he'd step aside if a fresh candidate with a good chance of winning were to appear. It's possible that a strong candidate like Clark could unite the whole party behind him pretty early on, and go into the primaries with the race halfway won.

A telegenic retired general would be, well, an answer to the prayers of Democrats everywhere. Let us all join hands and repeat together, "Run, Wesley, run..."

Nick Cohen offers his perspective on 'winner take all' meritocracies and social inequality against the backdrop of the firefighter's strike in the UK.

Buzzflash exposes the major Republican lies of the last two years. It's long, but hey, consider the subject.

Nathan Newman posts this, House GOP To Unemployed - Drop Dead.

This blog, Back To Iraq, is maintained by a journalist who's spent time in Iraq's Kurdish territories in the north. This recent entry gives one of the best reasonings I've heard yet as to why we're so gung ho to go in, even with Bin Laden resurfacing like a horror movie villain. In part:

...Why is this necessary? Because way back in 1990, the the Bush White House, part first, announced a defense posture that called for “adult supervision” of the world. And the most recent iteration of the National Security Strategy of the United States calls for the globe’s sole superpower to suffer no rivals militarily or economically, imposing a pax americana. So the United States is in the Gulf to guarantee the supply of oil not for itself, but for Europe and Japan, which get most of their oil from the Middle East. (Surprisingly, the United States gets most of its oil from Canada, Venezuela and Mexico; Persian Gulf sources supplied only 11 percent of America’s oil in 2000, according to the Department of Energy.) The United States Marines safeguard the Persian Gulf because Europe and Japan might re-arm and secure the oil sources for themselves if we didn’t. And as I said, the United States does not intend to suffer rivals gladly. ...

So, according to this view, all the whining about the rest of the world being freeloaders, courtesy of our selflessly provided military grandeur, goes out the window. We complain in high drama queen fashion about the burden of being alone at the top, and the crushing weight of the responsibility... but no one had better try to relieve us of it.

Irradiated beef: Is it what's for dinner in your house?

...Last winter, Iowa Senator Tom Harkin inserted last minute provisions into the Senate farm bill, allowing irradiated beef to be labeled as "pasteurized," instead of the Food and Drug Administration's suggested "Treated By Irradiation" label. ...

...In fact, the safety of our food supply, and especially the protection of the health of our growing children is so important to our own President that more than a year ago the Bush administration proposed introducing irradiated ground beef into the National School Lunch Program. ...

..."Irradiated meat is a very different product than natural meat. This is hardly surprising as the Food and Drug Administration's approved irradiation dosage of 450,000 rads is approximately 150 million times greater than that of a chest x-ray. Apart from high levels of benzene, new chemicals known as 'unique radiolytic products' were identified in irradiated meat in U.S. Army tests in 1977, and recognized as carcinogenic. Later tests identified other chemicals shown to induce genetic toxicity." ...

Now school children can have genuine mystery meat at school, maybe even science fun. "Look, Mr. Smith, we've isolated enough benzene from these burgers to ..." Mmmm, benzene.