Denigrated, disregarded and demoralized

In a particularly acerbic post (for him), Ezra Klein nails the state of the modern Democratic Party and its connection with base voters.

The loss in Massachusetts was a terrible disappointment to Democrats. But it can be explained away. Martha Coakley was a terrible candidate. Scott Brown ran an excellent campaign. These things happen.

But the reaction congressional Democrats have had to Coakley's loss has been much more shattering. It has been a betrayal.

The fundamental pact between a political party and its supporters is that the two groups believe the same thing and pledge to work on it together. And the Democratic base feels that it has held to its side of the bargain. It elected a Democratic majority and a Democratic president. It swallowed tough compromises on the issues it cared about most. It swallowed concessions to politicians it didn't like and industry groups it loathed. But it persisted. Because these things are important. That's why those voters believe in them. That's why they're Democrats.

But the party looks ready to abandon them because Brown won a special election in Massachusetts -- even though Democrats can pass the bill after Brown is seated. What that says is crucial: Whereas the base thought it was making these hard compromises and getting up early to knock on doors because these issues are important, the party thought all that was happening because, well, it's hard to say. It was electorally convenient? People need something to do? Ted Kennedy wanted it done?

There's no Democratic leadership. They campaigned on things like health care. They spent months debating it, which ultimately became the glaring problem ... it took too long and now they're feeling the heat of that drawn-out charade. And by the way, both chambers already voted for health care!

Now they're going to pull back on health care because of Scott Brown? They still have a vast majority. The filibuster is not the end all be all of the Senate. Can you imagine George Bush-era Republicans backing down like the Democrats are, and have all year? Not that I'm endorsing Bush-era bullying, but a large electoral mandate is just that. All you need is 51 votes my friends. Democrats are so afraid of being labeled liberals that they have consistently given in to a Republican party full of conniving demagogues that are only worried about securing power rather than the monumental problems our nation faces -- ones they have a sizable claim to.

This all wouldn't be a huge deal if Democrats had any balls or coherent sense of leadership. But, alas, they are ineffectual, two-faced, sad-sack losers. One party is too stupid to lead. But the other is too gutless. I'm not sure which is more disheartening.

Safety first

365: Ladder on E. Capitol Ave.

Get a load of these guys

Is it funny to anyone else that Bush came back to Washington after months of silence to say this?

"I know a lot of people want to send blankets and water," Bush said while making his first visit to the White House since his presidency ended. "Just send your cash."

Thanks for coming by George. Can't you tell a lot about these three by their looks in this photo? Their expressions seem to match their personas. Clinton is concerned and compassionate (whether honest or politicking), Obama as the ultra-serious, deliberate cautionary and Bush the ... dim bulb. Or are those the stereotypes of them that have been drilled in my head?

(AP Photo)

United States Tax Court

Had to include this one.


See more at my Flickr page.

Capitol Hill

365: On Capitol Hill, DC.

The torture Right's tunnel vision on interrogation tactics

In light of word that Riduan Isamuddin aka Hambali -- the man accused of plotting the 2002 bombing in Bali that killed 200+ -- will be tried in Washington, D.C., former Bush speechwriter and torture enthusiast Marc Thiessen spews some predictable bile.

Thiessen's post from National Review's The Corner:

Hambali is being called the mastermind of the Bali bombings. That may be an accurate description, but it understates his importance. He was in fact the leader of a Southeast Asian terrorist network that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed turned to after 9/11 to carry out the “Second Wave” — a plot to hijack a plane and fly it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles. (KSM knew we would be on the lookout for Arab men, so he asked Hambali to recruit a cell of Southeast Asian operatives to infiltrate the United States. I tell the full story of the takedown of the Hambali network in Courting Disaster.)

Hambali and the key members of his terror network were captured only because of information gained from KSM after he underwent enhanced interrogation techniques. (Indeed, it seems that virtually everyone the Obama administration wants to put on trial in civilian court was captured as a result of the CIA interrogation program that Obama shut down.) After 9/11, we were unaware of the Hambali network or its plans — until CIA detainees were captured and questioned. Those detainees told us what we needed to know to take the network down.

The torture Right refuses to acknowledge the actual chronology of KSM's capture and the disintegration of the Library Tower plot. Adam Serwer at TAPPED again explains:

... the most prominent example in the supposed "wave of suicide hijackings" supposedly disrupted by waterboarding KSM, the attack on the Library Tower in L.A., had been canceled before KSM was captured. Bush had bragged about disrupting the L.A. Towers plot in 2002, but KSM hadn't been captured in 2003.

Under interrogation by the CIA at a black site, Hambali revealed plans for a "wave" of attacks on U.S. subways and businesses and a planned attack using anthrax -- except as Jane Mayer reported in The Dark Side, those plots had already been disrupted by December 2001, and the scientist developing the anthrax was already in U.S. custody.

As for whether the information KSM gave led to Hambali's capture, some of it may have. It's politically convenient for the the GOP to draw a direct line between KSM being waterboarded and Hambali being captured, but that presupposes that the U.S. had no assistance from overseas partners. In the imaginary world of 24, all you have to do is torture a suspect to get information. But in reality, piecing together intelligence information is a complicated process, and it's highly unlikely that KSM provided the only information that led to Hambali's capture. The Bush administration's prior misleading characterizations of how useful information gleaned through torture was don't exactly inspire confidence.

In a separate post, Serwer documents the only part of America that's losing its head over the attempted attack by Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is the GOP, while Obama's response seems to have helped his approval ratings, according to a Pew poll.

Torture has become a crucial plank to one political party's platform, as U.S. Senate candidate (and the current darling of the Right) Scott Brown underscored with his own endorsement of "enhanced interrogation techniques." This is the legacy of the Bush-Cheney years.

The MSM could give a damn

Once again, the job of keeping the government in check regarding nasty things like the legality of Predator drone strikes in Pakistan and Afghanistan is left to diligent groups like the ACLU while our vacuous press masturbates to the latest gossip shitbrick book about the '08 campaign.

The ACLU, via Spencer Ackerman:

“The American public has a right to know whether the drone program is consistent with international law, and that all efforts are made to minimize the loss of innocent lives,” said Jonathan Manes, a legal fellow with the ACLU National Security Project. “The Obama administration has reportedly expanded the drone program, but it has not explained publicly what the legal basis for the program is, what limitations it recognizes on the use of drones outside active theaters of war and what the civilian casualty toll has been thus far. We’re hopeful that the request we’ve filed today will encourage the Obama administration to disclose information about the basis, scope and implementation of the program.”

As the ACLU inquires on what is possibly the most immediate concern within our modern warfare complex, the mainstream media prefers the low-hanging fruit fed to them by fellow anonymous-source obsessed, politics-as-celebrity hacks.

We owe you nothing, you have no control

In the age of the modern president endorsing indefinite detention, whether based on perceived dangers to America, or country of origin or plain arrogance, a Supreme Court case like U.S. v. Comstock gives legitimate pause for concern.

The case is challenging the federal government's plea to allow the further incarceration of federal prisoners even after they've served their time in jail. In this case, the defendants are all sex offenders deemed "too dangerous" to be set free. While it's hard to sympathize with sex offenders that are judged unfit for freedom (by whom?), my worry is where this can lead.

The Washington Post:

A majority of Supreme Court justices seemed inclined Tuesday to accept that the federal government has the power to indefinitely hold prisoners who are deemed sexually dangerous, even if they have completed their sentences.

[...]

But (Solicitor General Elena) Kagan told the court that it is simply an extension of the federal government's recognized power "to run a responsible criminal justice system." She said that if the federal government cannot find a state willing to take responsibility for a sexually dangerous prisoner about to be released, federal officials have to step in.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg seemed to agree. "You are talking about endangering the health and safety of people," Ginsburg said. "The government has some responsibility."

Surprisingly, it was arch-conservative justice Antonin Scalia that most vigorously opposed the government's argument, though his qualms likely rested in protecting states' rights. Regardless:

Kagan's chief antagonist was Justice Antonin Scalia, who said, "There is no constitutional power on the part of the federal government to protect society from sexual predators." He rejected Kagan's argument that the federal government had a responsibility because the states were not taking on the task.

"This is a recipe for the federal government taking over everything," Scalia said. "The states won't do it, therefore we have to do it. It has to be done and therefore the federal government steps in and does it."

And this paragraph on the argument made by Kagan that a valid precedent is prisoners with communicable diseases seems alarming to me.

Others -- Justices Stephen G. Breyer and John Paul Stevens, notably -- seemed responsive to Kagan's analogy that the federal government would be within its rights to detain a soon-to-be-released prisoner who had a dangerous communicable disease.

If this is given a pass as constitutionally viable, what category of prisoner is next? What path are we choosing, if we haven't already made our decision?

8 years of Gitmo

365: Demonstrator marches from the White House through downtown DC.

NYT: Break out the weak Democrat meme

I'm guessing Helene Cooper gets paid by the article. This is a pathetic piece. That's all I'll say. Some selected spots:

The Label Factor: Is Obama a Wimp or a Warrior?

Like every Democratic president since John F. Kennedy, President Obama is battling the perception that he’s a wimp on national security.

[...]

And labels count, as a poll taken last August by the Pew Center for the People and the Press illustrates: When voters were asked which party could do a better job of dealing with terrorism, they expressed more confidence in Republicans than in Democrats, as they had consistently since 2002. The 2009 margin was 38 percent to 32 percent. But when asked which party could do a better job of making wise decisions about foreign policy, 44 percent chose the Democrats, 31 percent the Republicans.

[...]

But labels can stick, as Mr. Carter himself found out so well, and as the Republicans also know from their experience parrying the opposite stereotype — of cowboy-style recklessness, first under Ronald Reagan and later under George W. Bush (whose own father, oddly, was said to have suffered from a “wimp factor”).

[...]

Then there’s terrorism. Mr. Obama will also have to demonstrate some tangible action there, the experts say, to dispel the notion put forward by the Republicans that his plans to shut down the detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, makes Americans less safe. The Christmas Day attempted plane attack over Detroit failed in many ways, but it succeeded in doing one thing: reintroducing the issue of terrorism into the American psyche. Now, Mr. Obama is under pressure to show that he considers fighting terrorism to be a priority.

The problem though, is that many of the steps he can take against terrorism — like intelligence co-operation, drone strikes and covert actions — are, by their very nature, often invisible. “He needs visible victories there, like hits on Al Qaeda leaders, so no one is able to put together a narrative that says he’s weak,” said David J. Rothkopf, a Clinton administration official and author of “Running the World: The Inside Story of the National Security Council and the Architects of American Power.”

Society's cleaners

365: I keep meaning to take a picture of this. I love it. This is a cleaning place just to the side of the Safeway parking lot near the Potomac Metro.

Broder mails another one in, hopes Obama gets serious

There's no better source to find what the modern, conventional, Beltway groupthink of the day is than to read David Broder's columns in The Washington Post. Whether it's laziness, a warped worldview, stubbornness, all of the above, I don't know. But Broder's column today is pretty typical of the collective thought bouncing around Washington regarding Obama's reaction of and attitude toward the FAILED attempt to bring down an airliner on Christmas. It seems Broder simply used his columnist-version of Mad Libs to mail in another one.

Worn-out Beltway trope #1: Our modern president, aka Daddy, must protect us at all times, lest he be caught off guard, which, in Broder's mind, would be all his fault and an indicator that he isn't "serious" or worthy of official Washington's respect.

Was Christmas Day 2009 the same kind of wake-up call for Barack Obama that Sept. 11, 2001, had been for George W. Bush?

The near-miss by a passenger plotting to blow up an American airliner as it flew into Detroit seems to have shocked this president as much as the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon did the last.

Both presidents had had plenty of warnings in the form of threats and even incidents. But both were caught off guard: Bush reading to a classroom of youngsters; Obama on a family vacation in Hawaii.

It's as if the president -- to Broder, our supreme, benevolent, all-knowing commander -- must be locked away in a top secret War Room at all hours of the day personally monitoring the constant stream of incoming intelligence, domestic and international.

Beltway trope #2: Sound the war drum!

For now, we are conducting a proxy war in Yemen, but that may change. Al-Qaeda's local enablers must learn that there is a price to be paid when Uncle Sam is attacked from their bases.

Jesus. Hasn't this crotch-grabbing machismo gotten us into enough deep shit already? Is Broder completely unaware, or has he even ever contemplated the possibility, that this militant attitude is a prime, if not the preeminent, inflammatory recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, not to mention the attitudinal nexus of all that is wrong about America's view of itself and the rest of the world?

Beltway trope #3: Obama has tried to do too much and should now focus on terror -- as if he wasn't already in directing a five-front war -- as his "new priority."

--and--

Beltway trope #4: The naive, or "benign" as Broder calls it, leadership style of the president will only change when Barack Obama (and by proxy, Democrats) becomes "serious" and comfortable being a war president.

For Obama to establish a new priority would obviously be much more difficult than it appeared to be for Bush. And this new priority would be a much less comfortable fit for Obama than leading a war on terrorism was for Bush.

Nonetheless, events have their own logic. The Christmas plot appears to have shaken Obama like nothing else that happened in his first year. When he allowed the White House to quote his warning to his Cabinet colleagues that another "screw-up" like that could not be tolerated, he seemed to signal that his benign leadership style had reached its limits.

Many have been looking for a similar shift of tone in his dealings with the dictators in Iran and North Korea and even in his tolerance for the politics-as-usual maneuverings of many Republicans and some Democrats in Congress.

It's as if the DC media establishmentarians like Broder, boosted by the ratings trolls within the cable news industrial complex, refuse to do or allow any critical thought of the ramifications of America's policies in the Middle East and beyond, as well as the effects of what they write or say.

My issue here isn't that he's criticizing Obama, but rather, the criticism is lame, predictable and largely void of any value. Unfortunately, this is all too common from the DC media stars.

After eight years of incompetent, chest-beating leadership from the Bush administration that brought an endless stream embarrassment, failure, death and global chaos, Broder seemingly wants more. And the tragic irony is that Obama's policies aren't all that much different than Bush's. But the Broders of the world have no interest in critical thought. Arrogance and narrow-mindedness are not only valued but also rewarded. It's the Washington way.

Big eye, big guy watching me

365: The surveillance state.


Glenn Greenwald examines how our modern surveillance state has too much to process, therefore leading to the intel failures exemplified by the Abdulmutallab attempt on Christmas Day:

The problem is never that the U.S. Government lacks sufficient power to engage in surveillance, interceptions, intelligence-gathering and the like. Long before 9/11 -- from the Cold War -- we have vested extraordinarily broad surveillance powers in the U.S. Government to the point that we have turned ourselves into a National Security and Surveillance State. Terrorist attacks do not happen because there are too many restrictions on the government's ability to eavesdrop and intercept communications, or because there are too many safeguards and checks. If anything, the opposite is true: the excesses of the Surveillance State -- and the steady abolition of oversights and limits -- have made detection of plots far less likely. Despite that, we have an insatiable appetite -- especially when we're frightened anew -- to vest more and more unrestricted spying and other powers in our Government, which -- like all governments -- is more than happy to accept them.

More collected information doesn't mean more safety. It just means more convolution for our intelligence gathering officials to sort through. The Patriot Act again and again proves to be the poster child for egregious U.S. government policy on a variety of fronts.

The downward-spiral effect of America's terror policies

In the aftermath of President Obama's statement today on the "potentially disastrous" failure to stop Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab from boarding an airliner in an apparent bombing plot, Spencer Ackerman points out a distinction that should be highlighted when discussing what has been called a breakdown in connecting the dots by the intelligence community. Obama said the intel was available, but he then repeated the line about professionals within the intelligence apparatus missing the connections.

Ackerman:

But it’s not true that there was sufficient information “that would have placed the suspect on the no-fly list.” As a U.S. intelligence official told me last week, there is a standard for moving someone from a person-of-interest list run by the National Counterterrorism Center to the FBI-maintained Terrorist Screening Database. That standard is “specific derogatory information leading to reasonable suspicion.” And that FBI-maintained database still has another procedural and evidentiary step to go through before placing someone on the no-fly list.

In essence, if Obama wants to change the standards of how one lands on a no-fly list, he should do it. But to blame officials for not "connecting dots" isn't really accurate. As the official told Ackerman, there are certain standards to follow; simple suspicion has to take that extra step. Ackerman once more:

Obama can say that common sense dictates that Abdulmutallab ought to have been on the no-fly list. But that’s reasoning backward from the conclusion. It’s appropriate after a failure occurs. But it’s not appropriate as an explanation for how that failure occurred. The standard for placing someone on the no-fly list is simply not met by the aggregated intelligence that Obama cited (and he didn’t unveil any new information).

For the president to hawk this as a connecting-the-dots failure seems to be either disingenuous political theatre to put on a show for our feeble minds, or just a misunderstanding of the issue.

Speaking of political theatrics, the administration announced that several Yemenis kept at Guantanamo Bay for years, then found innocent of any crimes, must stay incarcerated due to the "deteriorating security situation" in Yemen, all so Americans can know that their Daddy president is protecting them from the evil terrorists.

Reuters:

President Barack Obama bowed to political pressure from Democratic and Republican lawmakers not to send any more prisoners to Yemen as a result of revelations that a would-be bomber on a Detroit-bound plane had received al Qaeda training in Yemen.

"It was always our intent to transfer detainees to other countries only under conditions that provide assurances that our security is being protected," Obama said.

"Given the unsettled situation, I've spoken to the attorney general (Eric Holder) and we've agreed that we will not be transferring additional detainees back to Yemen at this time," Obama said.

As Andy Worthington has pointed out in his dogged coverage of Guantanamo Bay, this rationale is bad policy at best (in that it only threatens to radicalize more than it protects anyone's safety) and against the rule of law at worst.

“only at Guantánamo can fear trump justice to such an alarming degree” that, “if [the officials’] rationale for not releasing any of the Yemenis from Guantánamo was extended to the US prison system, it would mean that no prisoner would ever be released at the end of their sentence, because prison ‘might have radicalized’ them, and also, of course, that it would lead to no prisoner ever being released from Guantánamo.”

Our monarchical structure says we can indefinitely detain anyone we deem a threat. From Bush to Obama, this is set American policy. Can anyone claim with a straight face that any president in the near future will reverse these policies based on A) today's support torture by (at least) one political party and an alarming number of Americans who have been instilled with fear at every turn, B) our spineless, constantly-posturing political class and C) an irresponsible, for-profit mainstream media that will exploit TERROR! and FEAR! and DANGER! to cull ratings.

So at this point, we're left with what could be called Terrorball, the unwinnable game of fear and paranoia brought to you by Washington's ruling and chattering classes.

Our national government and almost all of the establishment media have decided to play a similar game, which could be called Terrorball. The first two rules of Terrorball are:

(1) The game lasts until there are no longer any terrorists, and;
(2) If terrorists manage to ever kill or injure or seriously frighten any Americans, they win.

Read the entire post at Lawyers, Guns and Money. He shares statistics detailing the number of deaths in America unrelated to terrorism, but caused but things we have accepted as normal, as in starvation, homicide and lack of health care.

Ladies and gentlemen, your America in 2010.

War spending comically dwarfs airport security spending

The title says it all:

US Spends Ten Times More On Afghanistan Than Airport Security

The numbers indeed are sobering. In fiscal year 2009, the Transportation Security Administration was allocated $7.99 billion, $5.74 billion of which was earmarked for aviation security (Page 154). Only $128 million of that total was geared towards "enhancements at passenger checkpoints to improve the detection of prohibited items, especially weapons and explosives" which is roughly $100 million less than the tax break granted to Alaska fishermen in the stimulus package passed early this Congress.

Contrast those numbers with the dollars being poured into the two wars. A report released in September by the Congressional Research Service estimated that $94.8 billion was spent in Iraq in FY09. Another $55.2 billion is going to Afghanistan (more than ten times the amount spent on aviation security) with the number rising to $72.9 billion in 2010. That total, does not include the expected $30 billion that will be required to pay for additional troops.

You're next Yemen.

Matthews recognized Politico's charade

As much as Chris Matthews is a useless gasbag, he can occasionally stick it to someone -- or Politico in this case.

Matthews was with Politico's Jonathan Martin, who, to be fair didn't have any of these Cheney "exclusives" they come up with that give Cheney an open, uncontested platform to say whatever he wants. I think it's mostly Mike Allen who is the scorned former VP's stenographer. But still, pretty funny.

MATTHEWS: I mean, he’s got his own news conduit.

MARTIN: You know, we aggressively report on both sides.

MATTHEWS: It’s not reporting. He feeds you this stuff. … I do like Politico. He’s feeding you guys this crap. [...]

What’s he call up and say? “I got a hot one for you, Jon. Can you take — what’s your email address?” Is that what he does?

It's official Politico. Everyone gets the schtick. Get clicks, news value and integrity be damned.

Nothing seems to kill me, no matter how hard I try

Spencer Ackerman chronicles the follies of the current climate around releasing Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo Bay. Congress and, more importantly, the administration seems content on keeping them locked up no matter what their status of guilt.

Critics of President Obama’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility are saying that the Yemen connections of would-be plane bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab ought to prevent the administration from repatriating dozens of Yemeni detainees currently held at Guantanamo. “It would be irresponsible to take any of the Yemeni detainees in Guantanamo and send them back to Yemen,” Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) said on ABC News’ “ThisWeek” on Sunday.

[...]

The Yemeni official declined to comment on the impact a lack of repatriation would have on the two nations’ relations. Nor would the official comment on the congressional calls to keep the Yemeni citizens at Guantanamo. But the official said, “The detainees that have been sent to Yemen were detainees that have been cleared by U.S. courts, and therefore are presumed innocent, or at least nothing stands against them.” (Few, if any, Yemeni detainees at Guantanamo have received a hearing before a civilian U.S. court.)

You know what you create when you keep a newly freed (and ultimately cleared and innocent) man incarcerated for "security concerns" of America? A man that screams BLOW UP THE OUTSIDE WORLD!!!!!!!

How much longer can we make the decisions we seem to be making with Yemen here? What is the end of this constantly moving focus on al-Qaeda throughout the world? How much longer can we chase these nihilists throughout the world while simultaneously serving as the prime recruiter of angered Muslim young men full of hatred for America? We are maiming their innocent citizens through inexact drone strikes. It's increasingly difficult -- as if it was ever easy -- to verify who exactly was hit in these strikes. It seems the U.S. will characterize anyone near affiliation with anyone in al-Qaeda as associated with the group, in a malicious, indoctrinated way. Tribal leaders claim a multitude of citizenry, especially children, as the victims of these strikes. Reality is blurry. But the plain truth is that innocents are being murdered by these strikes, and the effect on those with and without ties to al-Qaeda is immeasurable.

Think before thy speak

I love the way Limbaugh posed for his adoring fans amid his own possibly troublesome heart conditions over the holidays in the progressive Hawaii health care system.

The SEIU's site:

Whether he realized it or not, Limbaugh was praising the care he received from union nurses in one of the country's most progressive health care systems. On behalf of the labor movement and health reform advocates everywhere, THANKS FOR YOUR SUPPORT, Rush!

Overeating and Oxycontin never helped either Rush.

Welcome 2010

365: The fallout begins.

The value of justice

It pays to read until the end of a story. In today's WaPo story on Iraqi reaction to the decision by a U.S. judge to dismiss the charges against the Blackwater guards that opened fire on innocent Iraqis in Baghdad in 2007, this pearl comes as the finale:

Firas Fadhil Abbas, whose brother Osama was killed at Nisoor Square, said that "if someone kills a dog in America, they do not escape punishment. I don't understand this trial."

The value of an Iraqi life is in question, and Abbas nails it. He's right, so where's the outrage? I understand that the judge probably had to make this decision based on the abuse of protocol by members of the Bush-era federal government. That said, I sincerely hope an investigation is done by the DOJ to figure out why these protected statements from the accused guards were allowed to be seen/used by prosecutors. How did they not know what was allowable in this case? It seems inexcusable that they did not know, so what was thought process here? Was it intentional? Just careless? I doubt it.

Abbas says the execution of a dog would go punished in America. He's right. What happens when 17 innocent Iraqis are murdered? Where's the justice? What happens next? I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this case, but, really, how likely are these guards going to face a real trial at this point?

Sound of Silver, talk to me

I'm a little late on this, as it's Jan. 2, 2010, but my pick for best album (and most profound) is LCD Soundsystem's Sound of Silver, 2007. Note: That is before I think hard and revert back to the prophetic Kid A from 2000.

My favorite track on Sound of Silver is North American Scum. The title says a lot, but the song is equal parts antagonistic, apologetic and (oddly) appreciative of the ugliness the world sees in North Americans.



This album, I believe, encompasses so much of the melancholy and desperation (in the form of "dance-punk" music) of the post-9/11 world, when two wars raged and next to no one could keep up with the massive transformations happening around the world. If Kid A was Radiohead's prediction for the times, Sound of Silver was the representative of the fallout.

Creedocide

Getting rid of mice the spiritual way.

Important Things with Demetri Martin
Power - Creedocide
www.comedycentral.com
Joke of the Day Stand-Up Comedy Free Online Games

Chickenhawks: President must over-dramatically scold and condemn from home (not Hawaii) to be serious on terror

Glenn Greenwald says Obama's calm is what he likes about him. This is in response to media drumbeaters straight from the mainstream media and/or neocon butcher shops attacking Obama for his so-called lack of a hysterical, over-dramatic return to "defend" us from terrorism and say "bring it on" in from the White House (or heroic as this fearful wing of the Right characterize it) after the failed attack on Northwest Airlines Flight 253. I like that aspect of Obama too. Sometimes his glib aloofness is both a gift and a curse, but in this case, it serves him well.

Greenwald on the struggle to spin Obama's treatment of Flight 253 and our addiction to terror melodramas:

That's because Obama reacted as though this is exactly what it actually is: a lame, failed attempt to kill people by a fractured band of criminals. It's not the Cuban Missile Crisis or the attack on Pearl Harbor, as disappointing and unfulfilling as it is to accept that. It merits analysis, investigation and possibly policy changes by the responsible government agencies -- not a bright-red-alert, bell-ringing, siren-sounding government-wide emergency that venerates Al Qaeda into a threat so profound that the President can't even be away from Washington lest they get us all. As always, Al Qaeda's greatest allies are the ones in the U.S. who tremble with the most fear at the very mention of their name and who quite obviously crave a return of that stimulating, all-consuming, elevating 9/12 glory.

We are so afraid. Why? It's as if we possess only a hairline-sensitive ability -- or disability -- to not lose our minds when an event like Flight 253 happens. The sole interest for cable networks and the rest of the mainstream media is to whip up lame tripes about his bonafides, safe, safe, are you safe, what's Obama doing? Why is he "soft" on terror, which is ridiculously ironic since he's near a 5-front war on Musliim countries right now, with Iran looming in the background. That old right-wing state of fury and vengeance is really drilled into Americans' heads. I fear some did not learn lessons of the Iraq War run-up.

Hubris ... overweening pride

Torture-memo author John Yoo will never go away. He'll continue to pop up to defend torture, a de facto defense of his own egregious behavior as a stooge Office of Legal Counsel lawyer for the Justice Department who was more than giddy to rubber stamp whatever his dear leader Bush wanted: the torture of other human beings in the name of "national security."

Yet it's still a little disorienting to read quips like the ones he offered The New York Times Magazine.

Do you regret writing the so-called torture memos, which claimed that President Bush was legally entitled to ignore laws prohibiting torture?
No, I had to write them. It was my job. As a lawyer, I had a client. The client needed a legal question answered.

When you say you had “a client,” do you mean President Bush?
Yes, I mean the president, but also the U.S. government as a whole.

But isn’t a lawyer in the Department of Justice there to serve the people of this country?
Yes, I think you are quite right, when the government is executing the laws, but if there’s a conflict between the president and the Congress, then you have to pick one or the other.

Were you close to George Bush?
No, I’ve never met him. I don’t know Cheney either. I have not gone hunting with him, which is probably a good thing for me.

"It was my job. As a lawyer, I had a client. The client needed a legal question answered." Unbelievable. Does he hear what's coming out of mouth? I get it, defend yourself at all costs John. But understand that you'll have keep up this pathetic, soul-sucking charade the rest of your miserable life. Maybe it's not a charade, maybe he's convinced himself through extreme delusion that what he did was just. But then why does he continue to pop up in such inane "interviews" like this that only make him look more like the tool he is? Why does he keep writing op-eds?

He knows what he's validated. And he'll have to keep it up, at least for the next 20 years or so.

My holiday

He is watching

Another disappointment

With so much else going on (health care, Afghanistan, Wall St. hackery, 20 inches of snow), I'll admit I don't think much about judicial appointments made by the president. Just not my thing. But I do understand the gravity behind these lifetime appointees that are trusted to uphold the law, of course.

So it's further disheartening -- after all the other shortcomings -- that the Obama administration is woefully behind, or just slow, in filling so many important vacancies. On top of that, Obama has shown a nasty moderate streak. Firedoglake's bmaz has an excellent take on the state of judicial nominees. In Obama's world, he's A) afraid of looking to liberal, B) STILL taking the GOP in somewhat good faith and C) well, he's not a liberal.

bmaz:

Obama’s Infirm Lump Of Coal Judicial Policy

At what point do progressives quit perpetuating the unsupportable dream fixation of a living, breathing principled progressive lurking beneath the slick dick political marketing gloss that is Barack Obama? Obama is not a patsy and he is most certainly no “Constitutional scholar”; if he were, he would not be letting the health and future of American Article III courts wither while he dithers. Instead, Mr. Obama is a common retail politician that is willing to say what it takes to get and stay elected; principles are seemingly merely the vehicle for attracting the support he needs at any one time.

He wants "empathetic moderates" bmaz writes. Good luck.

Justice John Paul Stevens is done after this term, that is a given; but also Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s chair may come open as well. The problem here is that Mr. Obama, even when replacing sitting liberal justices, seems hell bent to move the overall composition of the court markedly to the right with his stated desire to appoint “empathetic moderates” whatever in the world that is in practice. If Stevens and Bader Ginsburg are replaced by a couple of mealy mouthed David Hamiltons, not only will we regret it, but so will our children; that is the gravitas of lifetime appointments. Barack Obama must not be allowed to further shift the Supreme Court to the right.

This business of restricting abortions in health-care reform has been startling enough, now what may happen if one of Obama's moderates is appointed to the SC and flips Roe v. Wade? Any that case is only the tip of the iceberg. Progressives, liberals, all have to step up, because with no pressure, it's too easy for him.

Proof: Jesus must love us

365 Photo: Walking to work Sunday, along Mass. Ave.

Get me off this crazy ride Jane

Most Americans agree: The Bush decade fucking sucked. That's about as eloquent as I can get on that one.

Are we forever desensitized by torture in America?

I like to highlight the Post's consistent online successes when I can. Sometimes it seems there aren't a lot, but that's another topic. One of the lasting gems of the site is online discussions. They get some great guests, politics and otherwise. Today, they invited (a real) conservative writer Reihan Salam and Slate senior editor and legal blogger Dahlia Lithwick to talk about some of the "worst ideas" of the 2000s, an Sunday Outlook feature where Salam wrote about compassionate conservatism and Lithwick about the torture memos. They answered questions about those topics and suggestions from readers.

I was lucky enough to get a response on my torture memo question from the always insightful Lithwick. (I'm Des Moines. Sometimes I'm Baltimore. And I figured out why those two: one, I'm keeping touch with an outsider, Midwestern "perspective" with Des Moines and with Baltimore, I'm a east coaster, yet somewhat local to DC. Weird.)

Des Moines, Iowa: Thank you both for being with us and writing excellent, concise takes on these two "worst ideas" of the decade.

Re: torture memos, the tragic legacy of the memos has now become the apparent refusal of the Obama adm. to thoroughly investigate and prosecute those responsible. It's possibly the prime example of modern Washington's corroded morals. In refusing to rise above the "political ramifications" of taking such action, it seems Obama has simply left the door wide open for more abuses, as you alluded to Ms. Lithwick. Is it almost inevitable that we'll walk down this road again, but with even less resistance due to the institutionalization of torture?

washingtonpost.com: The torture memos (Post, Dec. 20)

Dahlia Lithwick: Hi there and thanks to all of you who read the feature and to those of you who are writing in. Des Moines, this is the question that worries me more than almost any other. Without accountability for the acts of torture and without a probing investigation into how this could have happened, it does seem almost inevitable that we will, sometime down the road, feel justified in doing it again. Certainly the Obama Administration has renounced torture and the memos I referenced were withdrawn. But the issue isn't just these memos but a legal process that was warped. My other nagging fear is that American public opinion has really shifted on torture. Remember how horrified we were by the images from Abu Ghraib? I am not sure we would be as horrified next time. Polling suggests we have come to think of abuse as justified in some instances, despite the fact that the legal prohibition is absolute.

Your Bush-Obama America, December 21, 2009.

Flaming Lips do Pink Floyd

This sounds pretty amazing:

The Flaming Lips will release their version of Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon (one of Rolling Stone’s 500 Greatest Albums) digitally starting December 22nd. The Lips’ Dark Side — full title The Flaming Lips and Stardeath and White Dwarfs With Henry Rollins and Peaches Doing The Dark Side of the Moon — will be an iTunes exclusive for one week until December 29th, at which point it’ll head over to the other digital retailers. As you probably guessed from the rerecording’s epically long title, both Henry Rollins and Peaches contribute “vocal assistance,” or those talking-head bits that served as segues between songs on the original TDSOTM.

I can't wait to hear what they do with Dark Side of the Moon, especially Time. If any band can do the album justice, it's the Flaming Lips.

DC apocablizzard '09

365 Photo: Intelligence in the snowstorm.

Colbert is The Force in American socio-political humor

You want three reasons Stephen Colbert is the prime political satirist and pure entertainer of our time. These are the final three "scenes" of the four-part episode.

First, this part of tonight's "Word" as the segment's called. He essentially apes Bill O'Reilly's talking points, where the text on screen is suggestive and "summarizes" (or adds to) or Bill's thoughts. Anyway, Colbert shows his razor sharp social commentary in discussing the near expiration of some of the Patriot Act and how Obama is advocating to continue the powers, but that's just basically a further civil liberty issue Obama (and the entire party frankly) has reneged on a promise on. (The three videos all have the same preview screenshot -- with Tiger Woods -- but they should be different.)



Here, Stephen interviews Steven King in his "Better get to know a Steven" series (Stephen Colbert meets a Steven with a V). He chats with Steven King. Colbert shows why he's such a great interviewer in this absurdist character he plays. The improviser in him comes out when responding to a guest, though usually the question is just a trap and puts the guest in a no win position. But that's not always an easy feat. Plus, the horror "visions" of Stephen's are hilarious.



And here why he's also an extremely intelligent, concerned citizen watching Rome burn and wondering what the hell is happening. He's with Tom Brokaw talking about the failures of the last decade. Who's to blame? Brokaw cops out and says everyone. Brokaw also tears into the decisions that were pretty obviously impacted by the Bush administration. But he refuses to place blame. Anyway, Colbert shows his depth here, yet he never loses to comedic touch.

Bike things

365 Photo: New Eastern Market bike ... things.

The nonexistent cultural critique of Obama in music

As I've asked before, where are the artists in the age of Obama? Is all we are left with a shambles of half-ass celebrity musicians at this point? On Washington Post's poll of most influential band/musicians of the 2000s, their list rightfully included Radiohead, The White Stripes and Kanye West. But they included Taylor Swift and one or two other marginally talented but largely vacuous acts.

So this Washington Post discussion with Chris Richards and Dave Malitz piqued my interest, The Best of the Decade in Music. I asked the following about the best of the decade that contained some low lights for music's power to inspire dissent and cultural/political/social scrutiny. Chris responded. (By the way, in these chats, I never use Washington. I say I'm from Des Moines usually. Today was Bal'mor.)

Baltimore, Md.: In one end-of-the-year review, someone commented that The Strokes' first album title pretty much summed up the decade: Is This It.

The 2000s seemed pretty lackluster to me. But the more fractured the music scene becomes, the harder it is to pinpoint what was influential and, really, what the consensus is on anything in music.

Focusing on rock only, I'd throw The White Stripes, The Strokes, Modest Mouse, The Flaming Lips and Radiohead into the mix of most impactful. Veterans like Sleater-Kinney and Sonic Youth continued a steady buzzsaw through rock music (and younger peers). S-K was particularly important in that One Beat was a crisp commentary on the state of America, especially in light of 9/11 and the Iraq war. Where were all the other voices pushing against the Bush administration? It was left to, what, Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and Green Day? Among others. Those bands are fine and all, but not exactly the youthful voice of dissent? And now the question that seems to be long overdue in getting at least an initial answer is what the Obama era will sound like. Any "hope and change" feel-good moments are long gone. Where's the pushback to simply more rampant corporatism, escalated war, an ultimate letdown on health care and largely continuing Bush's egregious record on government secrecy and civil liberties? Or what about is impact on hip-hop? Who will be the first artist in that world to say, 'Where's the follow up?' Where's our cultural response to Obama? Is America in too much of a haze to care? Where are the artists?

Chris Richards: Our time is running out, but this is a thoughtful question we wanted to share.

Very quick response: I think there was a lot of political music in the 00s (just in hip-hop I'm thinking of Lil Wayne's Katrina response "Georgia Bush" and Young Jeezy's response to Obama's candidacy "My President Is Black"), but not enough.

By and large, I think a desire for escapism really dominated American culture.

I don't know Richards, but I largely agree with him. Well, it's unclear if he actually thinks there was a lot of "political music" in the decade or not. But I agree with the escapism. That's spot on, I think. (And yes, I like to be called thoughtful.)

The point is, we are pretty deep in the Obama era -- almost a year just as president and 3 or 4 years as a political phenom -- and I can't really identify one prod at Obama and what he's done as president in music. Are there bands singing about a hard economy? The gripping paralysis of our increasingly economic-unbalanced society? The thirst for imperialism? Militarism? Civil liberty snatching? Torture advocacy? Rampant corporatism? The forgotten swaths of America? Are black artists, hip-hop and otherwise, seeing where Black America is going under the first black president -- largely nowhere they weren't before I'd boldly say? Is anyone calling attention to the morally-deluded pack of whores we call leaders? I'm sure bands are out there, but I'm not hearing it. Maybe I should look harder. I hope I'm not looking hard enough, but I'm not sure.

Right on cue

365 Photo: Teabaggers decide to wear red and cry about Socialism. Someone tell these numbskulls that health-care reform is being controlled by industry and jackoff senators, financial reform is handled by the former Wall St. executives that populate the Obama White House and the president is actively opening the door for more torture in America's future. But no, the black guy with a funny name and silver tongue must be a Commie.

That is rich: Joe Lieberman edition

What a dick.

“I don’t feel like a spoiler,” Mr. Lieberman said. “I feel like somebody who has wanted to be for health care reform. We have within reach — the core parts of this bill are a historic accomplishment. I mean, think about it, 30 million people who can’t afford health insurance in our country today are going to get it under this bill. The cost curve is going to be bent down.”

We're supposed to thank Joe Lieberman for all his work on reform? Fuck that. This obstructionist, sour grapes, vain drama queen has ostensibly done more than any Republican to block true meaningful reform since he's part of the block of 60 votes that are supposedly behind reform. And he's got the balls to say he should be hailed as a positive force in this?

Basically what getting 30 million of the 45 or 47 million uninsured people under some kind of insurance means is that those 30M will HAVE TO BUY INSURANCE out of their own pocket from a private insurer. That is reform? That is the liberal answer to this colossal clusterfuck? Digby:

Nobody's "getting covered" here. After all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already. Whether those reasons are good or bad won't make a difference when they are suddenly forced to write big checks to Aetna or Blue Cross that they previously had decided they couldn't or didn't want to write. Indeed, it actually looks like the worst caricature of liberals: taking people's money against their will, saying it's for their own good. --- and doing it without even the cover that FDR wisely insisted upon with social security, by having it withdrawn from paychecks. People don't miss the money as much when they never see it.

And don't let anyone say there are solid reforms sprinkled throughout the Senate's proposal that will actually mean something to a decent amount of people. Why? Because the forces of Washington will water them down and eventually strip them of any substance, especially if Republicans ever have power again, which they will.

Nice work Democrats. You let the likes of Joe "Elmer Fudd" Lieberman and Ben "Ralph Wiggum" Nelson derail reform (Although that may give those vanity whores too much credit; Obama and Harry Reid have been completely ineffectual for the liberal cause). And any so-called progressive in Congress, especially the Senate, has been walked right over.

Par for the course in 2009, the year of Obama. Maybe we should all write our congressman. I wonder what they would write back?

Don't surrender

Here are two good reads for the day.

Cary Tennis of Salon on identity and self-expression.

The "common-sense" assumption is that "underneath" we are all just regular joes. The true self may be extraordinary and fine. It is axiomatic that if each of us is unique, our true self will be something the world has never seen before. If we are completely ourselves, we may not be recognized. We hide the true self, fearing rejection by the crowd. So we "dumb down," you might say. We find a million ways to conceal.

One of the tricks I have learned is that by seeming to reveal all we can conceal much. The more we reveal, the more we can hide. What we really wish to conceal lies at the bottom of the heap of revelations. Often what we truly wish to hide is our own weakness, fear and vulnerability. That is how I felt at that meeting -- weak, fearful, vulnerable. Yet I found myself thinking my way through it and not acting. "What, indeed, is the exact effect of speaking to others about our condition?" Blah, blah, blah.

And Glenn W. Smith at Firedoglake talks us off the ledge and injects some hope of his own into the ruins of Obama's multi-layered mess.

While we struggle to overcome that fundamental error, we run the risk of demoralizing Americans. In the long run, we need one another more than we need Obama. I might even say that inspiration should be our first and most important strategy. Our demoralization is certainly a key strategy of our opponents, as it has been with all authoritarians. A great essay on the renewal of hope in the face demoralizing tyranny is Vaclav Havel’s, “The Power of the Powerless.”

I have many acquaintances who can no longer even read news about the health care reform because they find it depressing. This demands recognition and action. These anxious folk are not weak or apathetic. Their hopes need renewing. We rely on our individual resources, but also upon one another for inspiration. If we don’t take steps to relieve the anxiety and restore hope, we will set the movement back a decade. The 2010 elections will be lost, but that may turn out to be the least of our problems.

[...]

Hope requires a tougher realism than either cynicism or surrender. Without an eyes-wide-open view of what is, the necessary steps for change are impossible to determine. Also, hope can easily devolve into a sentimental “everything’s gonna be alright” passivity or naivety. Popular melodrama sells a lot of this.

It takes much more character to hope in bleak times than it does to give up. That's invaluable advice.

Outside the Portrait Gallery

365 Photo: Along F St.

Window dressing for a serial killer's fantasy camp

Humans are rats

It's often difficult to make the distinction between the two.

Herndon man says he killed wife; police find female body in suitcase

A man showed up at Herndon police headquarters Friday morning with a note saying he had killed his wife, police said, and when officers went to the couple's apartment, they found a woman's body stuffed inside a suitcase on the apartment balcony.

The 36-year-old woman's name was not released, pending notification of her family. Police think she was strangled, Lt. Jeff Coulter said, and her body was not dismembered or otherwise harmed. She apparently was small enough to fit inside a large suitcase, police said.

The man, Jamie A. Kuhne, 34, was charged with murder. He is being held in the Fairfax County jail.

The couple have a 1-year-old son. Police said Kuhne apparently took the boy to day care early Friday, then drove to the police station shortly after 7 a.m. and turned himself in.

Sunsets and smokestacks

365 Photo: A view of south Washington, from Pennsylvania Ave.

Buy war bonds

Atrios:

Can't wait until I can buy some war bonds. Hopefully when you buy them they put your name on a freedom bomb.

Maybe Obama will introduce a new revenue stream in these dire, kick-the-dog-in-the-mouth economic conditions: The Adopt-a-Freedom Bomb Program. For only $300 (or 30,000 cents, for 30,000 new troops), you can put your name, or picture of your family, or a "patriotic message for our fighting men and women" on a Freedom Bomb shot from the Uncle Sam Mobile (or Predator Drone) on those evil "Muslim turrrists."

Speaking of Muslims, I got a braindead chain e-mail today that proclaims elementary schools in Europe are backing off teaching the Holocaust for fear of offending Muslims. First off, this is transparently a dog whistle for political correctness fetishists. But even so, it turns out this chain e-mail is years old, not to mention bogus. Disgustingly-stupid chain e-mails are one thing the bigoted wing of the American Right does best, because its intellect-suspicious, xenophobic deadender following will believe anything to fit their narrative of a persecuted white race.

It's here!

365 Photo:

The GOP loves Franken

Just saw Al Franken on the Senate floor during the vote for Ben "Ralph Wiggum" Nelson's regressive abortion amendment. (It failed, but that's beside the point.) Franken lingered on the floor the entire vote. He would quickly attach himself to a senator, or group of, and proceed to crack up. His cackle is unmistakable. The most remarkable thing about this, though, was the company he sought. With the exception of fellow freshman Democrat Kirsten Gillibrand, he solely interacted with Republicans. Keep in mind, this is during a failing abortion amendment to a health care bill that is despised by 98% of the GOP in the Senate.

Franken begins with Foghorn Leghorn's nephew, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama. Franken booms more than once on C-Span. He moves. Lindsay Graham. Three mega Franken laughs. Orrin Hatch, sponsor of the amendment. They love Franken, by the way. Their grabbing him by the arms. Patting his back. Chuck Grassley joins in. Franken cackles even louder. He pays attention to Chuck Grassley like you or I with a kindly old demented uncle. John Cornyn (Biiiiig Joooohn!). George Lemieux. Franken even occupies philandering laughingstock (and daddy's boy) John Ensign for a few minutes. Oh, the jokes.

Does this say more about Franken or the average Republican senator? I'm not sure.

And while Al can't stop laughing, Mad scientist Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) always votes, half-heartedly wanders around looking for a conversation he might like to commit to, then shuffles off when he realizes those hypothetical conversations with these mongoloids aren't worth his suffering. Good stuff.

Yellows

365 Photo: Cleaning at 15th and G, across from Treasury.

The indistinguishables

I'm obviously six days late, but I've finally taken in what happened with Obama's speech six days ago. Who did he sound like last week? 9/11 this, 9/11 that. Fear, paranoia, 9/11. 18-year-old kids going to war next year were 10 years old on 9/11; this thing is fueled by legends and folklore to them at this point. I guess we knew he would do this, from day one. But that doesn't make it any less disheartening. A candidate Obama doesn't have near the responsibility and access to hard truths like a President Obama. It was another one of "those" dark days.

Holding it at West Point? Mistake. It was not a rousing speech. It was the most somber war escalation speech in history, I'd boldly presume. Like any other president that has sent troops to war -- much less a botched, near-impossible war started by someone else -- the soldiers that die are his kids now. Haunting stuff. But they're so paralyzed by the powerlust and sheer death hold the system has on them.

What, is he giving the generals "one last try" to get it right? How war-tested and noble of our commander-in-chief. What about all the death, of us and Afghanis? You can't stop fucking terrorism (in this case al-Qaeda), and you definitely will only help coalesce al-Qaeda and the Taliban. You think escalating is a deterrent for them? This is what they want: To contribute to America's self-inflicted bleeding of lives, resources, principles. And Washington, like most everyone else in the U.S. it seems, fiddles while Rome burns. That's what I thought of our president. It reminds me a little of the last scene in Orwell's "Animal Farm" sometimes.

Update: This post by Glenn Greenwald exemplifies the "Animal Farm" comparison:

As (Harper's Scott) Horton writes, the claim that government officials enjoy a virtually impenetrable shield of immunity even in the commission of war crimes "has emerged as a sort of ignoble mantra for the Justice Department, uniting both the Bush and Obama administrations." Indeed, that is the common strain of virtually every act undertaken by the Obama DOJ with regard to our government's war crimes and other felonies, from torture to renditions to illegal eavesdropping.

With revelations of serious, recent abuse at an ongoing "black site" prison in Afghanistan, serious questions have been raised about the extent to which detainee abuse has actually been curbed under Obama. But there's no question that the single greatest impediment to disclosure and accountability for past abuses is the Obama Justice Department, which has repeatedly gone far beyond the call of duty in its attempt to protect Bush war crimes and other illegal acts. This new Seton Hall Report regarding these three detainees deaths illustrates not only how perverse and unjust, but also how futile, such efforts are. War crimes never stay hidden, and the only question from the start was whether the Obama DOJ would be complicit in the attempt to shield them from disclosure. That question has now been answered rather decisively.

Better China

365 Photo: Snowy day bookstore browsing

The system we live in ...

... is this:

The firestorm of criticism over the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, should not obscure a darker truth: Trial is only one prong of Obama's Guantanamo strategy. Some of the Guantanamo prisoners, including those who have been detained for seven or eight years, will remain imprisoned indefinitely with no prospects of ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. Obama's much-lauded intention to close Guantanamo will not change the fate of these prisoners, who will be transferred to other prisons in the United States or abroad, and as a result, the president will perpetuate one of the most troubling policies of the Bush administration. If Obama does not repudiate this policy, it will define what the government can do in the future.

And in a cruel twist, I can't communicate.

What did Osama bin Laden envision for America?

I've often wondered just what Osama bin Laden envisioned as he was planning 9/11. What did he think was probably going to happen in America if the attacks were anything like what they turned out to be: 3,000 dead and destruction that lingers today. Did he envision a war in Afghanistan, a holy war at that? In his wildest dreams, did he ever think we would turn out the way we did? And then, should we escalate when no one is sure what will happen, or, really, or whether we can ever claim this entire war was worth it?

Radley Balko gives his answer:

Here’s a question for the politicians who support Obama’s plan, as well as those to the right of him who think it isn’t warmongery enough: What exactly does “victory” in Afghanistan look like? Certainly no one in his right mind thinks the country is going to look like, say, Iowa in 20 years. Same for Iraq. Are we expending what in the end will be a few trillion dollars and likely the lives of 6,ooo-7,000 troops to create another . . . Saudi Arabia? Another Egypt?

We do have a pretty good idea how bin Laden pictured victory. It looks a lot like what we’re seeing now. He wanted a holy war. We gave him two. We’ve compromised our values, rolled back civil liberties, and let our politicians generally scare the crap out of us whenever they want new powers. Oh, and we’ve let the bastard live to gloat about it all.

This war should have been over the moment we disposed of the Taliban. The military doesn’t build liberal societies. They destroy illiberal ones (and they do it very well). I’ll wager we have at least 50,000 troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan by the end of Obama’s first term. In fact, I’ll bet it’s closer to 75,000. Lovely that this was the anti-war candidate.

I'm not convinced bin Laden had thought America would go quite as far as it did. Actually, I think going to Iraq was the unexpected, bombshell cherry-on-top for him, if he's still alive. At the very best, I think bin Laden expected America would come to Afghanistan and blitz the Taliban, have general "success" and leave after a few years. I'm sure the religious aspect was prominent in his mind. If he was anywhere near all of this, he's a genius. (I'm certainly not condoning mass murder, I'm just saying he would have had incredible foresight.)

But the economic costs? Humanitarian tragedies? Gitmo? Wiretapping? No way. And definitely not Iraq. Has this ever occurred to any of these neo-cons and hawk "tough guy" torture-enthusiast warmongers in our government and political establishment? That we gave him what he wanted and so much more? Doubtful.

Last of the golden boys

Was Tiger possibly the last American golden boy? I mean, I never thought of him in any scandal situation. He just seemed determined, or something. Turns out he was bored. Or I assume he was. I imagine if you're the best in the world at something, you're beyond rich and you're married to a Norwegian model, reality is skewed and you need a new thrill. He could do whatever he wanted. What person wouldn't take it advantage. You'd almost be crazy not to. I'm not condoning infidelity (though I don't really care b/c it's not my business). He'll get hounded, but this isn't the end of course. And, as Michael Wilbon points out in Tiger's remarks, it's a shame this personal sin has to be splayed out and filleted for the whole world to see. Again, no one suffers like the victims, and even more so in the public eye. THAT should have deterred him. It didn't.

Briefly....

365 from yesterday and today. World HIV/AIDS Day outside the White House.

More rain.

Oh my golly!

I went to Constitution Hall last night to see the Pixies. Daughters of the Revolution's Constitution Hall is not really a great place to see a rock show, especially one as loud as the Pixies. While it was a tad better than I expected, it was still pretty weak. I thought the show was solid, if only because it's an amazing album (they played Doolittle and a few others in the last encore).

While I thought it was mostly the venue's fault at first, I may have changed my mind now that I think about it. First off, the giant screen behind them may not have been the best choice. Kind of a diversion. I'll say they were half awesome, half obviously there to cash in 20 years later. Not that that always makes for a bad performance, but I didn't notice much interest in them. The video screen did help give them personality within the show, even though it was a recording. Bizarre. It's like saying, "I don't want to be who you want me to be, but we will throw a bone your way with these 'wacky' videos that we may or may not have approved or had much sway over."

That's actually not a bad way to go about it, if I were them. They have neither the desire, nor the energy to come out every night and live up to myths and exaggerations of the past. True, they're still good and can wipe the floor with most "current" bands. But the sense of going-through-the-motions was palpable.

Cheney (and Politico) could give a shit, apparently

All that can be said about Dick Cheney's despicable interview with Politico has been said already today. This is a sad, bitter, frightened man scrambling to preserve some shred of a legacy that doesn't put him at the center of preemptive war, torture, lies upon lies to the American people and a genuine disregard for humanity.

And Politico, as a so-called "news organization," sunk to new depths seeking (or being called by) Cheney to comment on the day Obama is ADDING troops (The irony here is stunning and, frankly, a bit confusing.). I have enough disdain already for Politico's vapid, sloppy, "win-the-day" bullshit journalism. But giving Cheney an open forum to say whatever he wants without, seemingly, follow-ups to his egregious answers is embarrassing at best, a gross malfeasance to the already sorry state of modern mainstream journalism at worst.

But back to Lord Death, from the interview:

In a 90-minute interview at his suburban Washington house, Cheney said the president’s “agonizing” about Afghanistan strategy “has consequences for your forces in the field.”

“I begin to get nervous when I see the commander in chief making decisions apparently for what I would describe as small ‘p’ political reasons, where he’s trying to balance off different competing groups in society,” Cheney said.

“Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”

[...]

Cheney was asked if he thinks the Bush administration bears any responsibility for the disintegration of Afghanistan because of the attention and resources that were diverted to Iraq. “I basically don’t,” he replied without elaborating.

[...]

“Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... — see that as a sign of weakness.”

Read the whole thing for a complete picture of this insidious, pathetic man.

But the disappointment goes beyond Cheney. We expect bile from him. Today, Barack Obama is just another George W. Bush. This is now his war. He's the pseudo-tough guy that will "win this war once and for all." He will leave the White House at 5:30 tonight, heading to West Point for his speech where he will outline a troop escalation of around 30,000, more troops than Bush's Iraq surge. Exit strategy optional. I'll be there in front of the White House with fellow protesters to see him off. I fear this is a colossal mistake, a cherry on top of a multi-faceted mess in America. Something has to give.