We're Still at War in Iraq....

Check out these numbers on the dead in Iraq from '04 to '08. Al Jazeera:

At least 85,000 people have been killed in Iraq by bombs, murders and fighting from 2004 until 2008, Iraq's human rights ministry says.

The government released the figures on Tuesday in a draft report based on death certificates issued by the health ministry.

It said 147,195 people had been wounded in the same four years, but the number of undocumented injuries and deaths could be far higher.

"These figures draw a picture about the impact of terrorism and the violation of natural life in Iraq," the rights ministry said.

And as Duncan Black says:

And most of its advocates feel no remorse whatsoever.

That 'whatsoever' being the New York Times's glib article on these statistics. The NYT that did its fair share in selling this war and giving the Bush administration an out.

This is on Big Harry.

Now that we have the entire teeth-gritting, nails-on-a-chalkboard Senate Finance Committee health care bill passed by a vote of 14-9, we can put them (or maybe just Baucus) out of the immediate spotlight. But you who awaits? Ramblin' Harry Reid! It's all on him now to ensure a public option final legislation. Because we already know that the House version will have one. If the Senate's has one, it's a done deal. So this, I believe, may be the biggest stage in all of this, sans an Obama endorsement of something solid.

Reid has a tough re-election fight ahead of him in 2010. He will have to hit the trail hard and fight for his life against a solid opponent (Jerry "The Shark" Tarkanian's son I hear) in Nevada. In that scenario, does Reid want to abolish a public option right here? Will that help him get elected or not? Or does he just want to do the least political harm while making some sort of supposed effort? Or does he care? Firedoglake:

The message (GLH: from other Democrats like Chuck Schumer) is pretty simple. Reid has the power to pass a public option. If the public option is killed in the Senate, the blame rests squarely on Reid. The question is, with a very tough election coming up, does Reid want to be know as the man who killed the public option?

This is it. This decision, the strategy of Leader Harry Reid will be assessed and students of political science may well dissect his choice here as a prime example of U.S. leadership in the modern political era. This could be a study in leadership driven by the political, and not for the people, only for maintaining power and influence. If Reid caves and the bill either has a watered-down coop (or trigger or opt-in plan) or if it doesn't include a public plan at all, I think we'll see it quite plainly. This is HIS FUCKING BILL. Forget Max Baucus now. He's done. Obama, obviously, has THE strongest hand, but I feel Reid has the weight of a sure thing on his back. This is what he'll be remembered for. Nothing else, most likely -- even his tenure of milquetoast, tepid command of the Senate after being awarded this significant mandate from the people.

My Vote Will Be Pliable, I Say!

I'm not sure if I like this statement or not:

"Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it," Snowe said in announcing her vote. "But when history calls, history calls."

That's Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) today while being the only Republican in the Senate Finance Committee to vote for the health-care reform bill.

Is that true or false sentiment? Is this a bold approach or not? Does this vote make much of a statement for her? I'm just not sure what she's trying to convey with the "far from it," then saying "history calls." I guess it doesn't ultimately matter what her intentions are, she voted for it. A vote is a vote. Then again, she'll be a pain in the ass for the rest of the process. She'll get what she wants, to a certain extent. They, being the White House, are oddly hellbent on including the mostly unserious Republicans on health reform. Snowe's the only one to take them up.

It seems pretty pathetic for all involved.

Immigration Reform Rally

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Thirty-seven and -eight, 10/12-13/09 - Immigration reform rally on Capitol Hill.)

All Those Yesterdays

I'm learning something about my long love of Pearl Jam. While I haven't been completely in love with the last few albums, I still considered their music my linchpin, the music I most reference within myself. But they are in another world now. They've grown up. They've made peace. They've enjoyed coming out alive from the American celebrity maneater and are ready to stretch out and enjoy things as being comfortable enough to be the aging rockers.

Fine. They are fully entitled to do so (while still maintaining a pretty badass program I should say before I'm branded a turncoat). Look, they always worked for Sony, but that corporate subservience always bothered them to some degree. For better or worse, look at the Ticketmaster thing. I view that as a badge of honor. Was it a bit ill-conceived and ripe for backlash? Yes, and the band itself in a new SPIN article calls it sabotage, but I prefer to call it a survival method. They shouldn't apologize for being young and idealistic, if a bit headstrong. They have other priorities in their music now. The new album Backspacer is the latest. It has a few nice moments, but it sounds highly formulaic of an arena rock band (when they went hard) and a bit cheesy in the lighter moments. But the worst? The song "The End" (actually is the end song) sounds like a Disney show tune number. Holy Fuck. It's an awful song. I think there's a string section, maybe a trumpet somewhere in there. It's the one of the only handful of songs of Pearl Jam's where I can unequivocally say I hate the thing.

Then I flip on Yield or No Code. I immediately connect. The pace, the sentiment, the wariness, the emotion, the calm, the words, the sounds, they all differ and blend to me, to who I am now. Here comes "Do the Evolution," the song I know inspired and shaped me into who I am and how I view the world. That song represents so much intellectual growth in me. And then the Bush administration didn't help endear them to outsiders in these intervening years (admittedly, their "insider" group is a lot of people and we shouldn't pity PJ for not having fans). They struck a resonant tone to me after Ten, which I only rate as decent. They step up in Vs. (which seems a long way from Ten's bigger guitars and soaring Vedder yelps.) and continue through Vitalogy, No Code, Yield, most of Binaural and selections of Riot Act. They are all over in tone in experimentation. They don't stay in one place very long. Their visibility waned, their popularity grew. Those sub-surface operations, the deliberate abstaining of excess while keeping a big fan base got them comparisons to the Grateful Dead.

But now? I'm not someone at middle age with a nice house on a lake and a family, and a big dog. I don't have an endless casket of Coronas chilling for me to, seems quite quickly in accounts I've read of Vedder, get drunk with a writer to prove you still got the old streak in ya. They're throwing axes at a tree, a game for real men.

That's not what I've needed from Pearl Jam. They're lives have changed so much over the years: from young, stubborn upstarts that expressed so much emotion and angst to a cynic pushing the boundaries with ferocity, elegance and passion. That mid-career Pearl Jam (part Vs., all of Vitalogy, No Code, Yield and Binaural) was that period when writers mention Ticketmaster and the band's complete pullback from big time success. How amazing is that? I feel they went from a band that could be the next big MTV (at the time) rock band. Doing interviews up and down and basically selling out. Whoring out. That ethic was not in the playbook for the band, but mostly Eddie Vedder, maybe part Jeff Ament.

They consciously pulled back. There was friction in the ranks. Sounds like there was some hurt feelings, albeit egotistical (Read: Vedder).

At the same time, Vedder was going through the meat grinder of being an idol, a symbol and a commodity. He was not comfortable with it and he steered the band in his direction, and rightly so (that's not a shot at the other members ... I love them and they have saved the band time and again with there tenacity and dedication).

Vedder wrote most of the songs ... which doesn't let him off the hook, but for me, I like the lyrics Vedder wrote and conveyed b/c he was the one with the most affected life during their sudden rise. He had stalkers. He had the dark backstory. He was getting the microscope and the attention and the fans that invested so much in him. They said he inspired them. They needed a leader. But, of course, it also didn't hurt that he was photogenic, and he actually was scowling all the time. That big anti-star persona/posture worked for people.

This career period for Pearl Jam was their real growth period. That immediate success of Ten didn't allow for the band to go through the growing-pain slumps and configurations members take to find an ease with each other, to find what I imagine is a musical understanding. Maybe this period's adversarial tone comes from the tension of not really knowing someone as your getting famous with them, as Vedder in San Diego was to Ament and Gossard in Seattle in '91.

Basically, again, these guys got married, they had some money (though they gave a lot to good causes in the mid-years). This lastest album seems lazy, more musically then lyrically. Look, Vedder's doesn't always hit it out of the park in this lyrics, but I've largely agreed with them, to put it simply.

I simply don't identify with the band's material anymore. It's that simple. It hurts a little, the separation of sorts. I grew up uncomfortable and anxious just as Pearl Jam was when they lashed back. That's the band I love. I will still love them (I'll probably buy the next album), but after some years of denial, I realize we've reached different stages.

I'll continue this some day.....
=================================================

In an unrelated note:

Once a month, some dipshit redneck calls me looking for Gerald Goodman. They sound as if they've never been on the phone before. It's like they're reading from a script. They can barely say anything clearly before they collapse into brain shock.

And I have a new characer:

Guy who's high and keeps saying "Good, How are you?" into a mirror in preparedness for an encounter with a roommate suspecting him of being high.

Equality

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Thirty-six, 10/11/09 - National Equality March, Washington DC)

Many more photos of the event can be found on my Flickr page.

An Appeal to Morality

I wonder if Obama has yet to sit and reflect on what was bestowed him recently, a Nobel Peace Prize? What thoughts and passions ran through his head and heart upon first chance to contemplate the historic names of those who've won the award? Mandela, MLK Jr., the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, the list goes on. What did Obama think now that he was to be added to that pantheon? Would it push him to become a peace president?

Obama knows well like all of us that this is premature, hopeful of his "potential," focused on his symbolic candidacy and not being Bush. Now I'm not one to say he should refuse it, apologize for it or let it become a "political liability" as all the DC insiders say and what the media peddles. This guy sums up the cynicism:

“At this point, Barack Obama is like the kid who gets a Porsche for his sixteenth birthday. It's wonderful but where can you go from there?” William Jelani Cobb, Professor of History, Spelman College....

I say, only in America can you find a a large part of a society ashamed of such a victory. He should accept, be gracious and get back to work.

But this cuts deeper, especially in the wake of a big decision on Afghanistan. He's now a man of peace. How does he justify fully embracing such an award when he is about to add to a war? I shouldn't suggest he's adding troops, I don't know, but we have to wonder if it's hard for him to reject the military power structure. He knows any drastic action will kill his "agenda" and cause the Democratic Party an even tougher election year (that looks to be a gain for Republicans), something the House would not be happy with. Rahm's a House guy. Can Obama stand up to these forces? I think he could live up to much of the award hype if he drastically de-escalated the war in Afghanistan and make sure we're working with Iraqis on a real withdrawal strategy.

I know I'm pretending to know what he thinks of himself and history. Maybe he thinks he deserves it, I don't know. But I really believe that it does mean something to him. Don't tell me being the president changes all of that inside a person.

There's Still Time

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Thirty-five, 10/10/09 - Garfield Park, SE Washington)

Let the Sun Shine In

I've mentioned before that the pride of awful human beings everywhere, Sen. Joe Lieberman, added an amendment to the homeland security appropriations bill that would keep photos of detainee abuse at the hands of American forces concealed. In other words, the photos would be made immune from the Freedom of Information Act, a vital tool in the effort for transparency in America. Joe, you patriot.

Well, now the White House wants the Supreme Court to hold on a case that directly addresses detainee photos. The court is scheduled to act on the case on Tuesday. Here's the solicitor general, Elena Kagan, the government's top lawyer in Supreme Court cases, pleading with the court to delay and let Congress sort out this messy little affair:

If Congress completes action on a provision in a new Homeland Security funding bill, Kagan wrote, “it now appears likely the Secretary of Defense will have legal authority to exempt the photographs at issue in this lawsuit from disclosure under FOIA [the Freedom of Information Act].”

Freedom is on the march. Wait, that was our last president. I need to be more recent. How about, "sunlight is the best disinfectant." Yes, that's our current commander in chief.

And just a reminder what kind of heinous acts our government is covering up in the name of national security:

The photographs at issue were taken by service members in Iraq and Afghanistan and were part of criminal investigations of alleged abuse. Some pictures show "soldiers pointing pistols or rifles at the heads of hooded and handcuffed detainees," Solicitor General Elena Kagan said in the appeal to the high court.

In one, "a soldier holds a broom as if 'sticking its end into the rectum of a restrained detainee,'" Kagan said, quoting from an investigation report prepared by the Pentagon. Two investigations led to criminal charges and convictions, she said.

Kagan is the former dean of the Harvard Law School. One wonders what her years of meticulous legal training are now informing her conscience to do. I know she's the government's lawyer and has to defend what the government wants her to, but that's no excuse for continuing to do so.

Beautiful Afternoon Around Eastern Market

(Photos: 365 Project, Day Thirty-four, 10/9/09 - Eastern Market and Pennsylvania Ave.)

What Will Obama Do With the Nobel Prize?

The news this morning that President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at international cooperation, especially on minimizing nuclear threats in the world and attacking climate change, comes as a surprise. The questions of 'does he deserve it?' have begun. WaPo is rounding up an array of reactions.

In his own reaction, Obama said he was honored and humbled, but he wasn't sure he deserved it. His spoke of the award as a symbol of a group effort throughout the world to work for peace. As per the usual from Obama, it was a classy handling of a bit of a dicey issue.

I think two things are most important here. One goes to the heart of why he was selected by the committee in Oslo. I think Josh Marshall nails it:

This is an odd award. You'd expect it to come later in Obama's presidency and tied to some particular event or accomplishment. But the unmistakable message of the award is one of the consequences of a period in which the most powerful country in the world, the 'hyper-power' as the French have it, became the focus of destabilization and in real if limited ways lawlessness. A harsh judgment, yes. But a dark period. And Obama has begun, if fitfully and very imperfectly to many of his supporters, to steer the ship of state in a different direction. If that seems like a meager accomplishment to many of the usual Washington types it's a profound reflection of their own enablement of the Bush era and how compromised they are by it, how much they perpetuated the belief that it was 'normal history' rather than dark aberration.

Remember that last sentence as we go forward. This, like so many aspects of Obama's initial period as president, is about the damning record of an arrogant Bush administration. This is a sharp rebuke of Bush tactics. That angle will be largely ignored, I predict, especially as we hear the usual Obama detractors decry the selection. John Dickerson at Slate:

The award will feed into the automatic sorting mechanism of politics. Conservatives who scoffed that Obama's Olympic defeat meant a drop in prestige should, by the same logic, herald this as an even greater spike in the same. They won't, because no one gets a prize for consistency.

Other parties that benefit from the prize are the producers at Fox News, who now know what they're going to talk about this weekend. Pundits win because the Nobel committee has validated the idea that speeches and atmospherics are really important. The award also offers the opportunity for all of us elites to do what we do best, which is miss how regular people might react.

But, really, this is definitely one situation where I could care less what the Rush Limbaughs of the Right think (Limbaugh himself believes this is about the world cheering a "neutering" of America). It will be hard for them to gain much traction crying about this.

Here's the second thing the matters: How will this award affect Obama's actions, if at all? In his speech this morning, he acknowledged the wars America is in, and he talked of working to ensure basic rights to all peoples.

We can't allow the differences between peoples to define the way that we see one another. And that's why we must pursue a new beginning among people of different faiths and races and religions, one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect.

And we must all do our part to resolve those conflicts that have caused so much pain and hardship over so many years. And that effort must include an unwavering commitment to finally realize that -- the rights of all Israelis and Palestinians to live in peace and security in nations of their own.

We can't accept a world in which more people are denied opportunity and dignity that all people yearn for: the ability to get an education and make a decent living, the security that you won't have to live in fear of disease or violence without hope for the future.

This comes at a time when pressure for him to raise troop levels in Afghanistan, to ostensibly restart the war, is reaching a fever pitch. And this weekend, the National Equality March will take place in DC. Obama is scheduled to speak to the Human Rights Campaign Dinner on Saturday, where he is expected to address gay rights. (He made some serious promises to the gay community during his campaign, but has yet to step up. It should be a revealing speech ... or not.) So, in highlighting war and respect for all peoples in his remarks this morning, will the Nobel Prize push him to advance gay rights? Will it give him pause in throwing more blood and treasure into the sinkhole that is Afghanistan? Or will he use this as a kind of bully pulpit, especially in Afghanistan?

Oklahoma Scores One for Extreme Shame

I'm not shocked easily, but this was a jolt (Think Progress):

On Nov. 1, a law in Oklahoma will go into effect that will collect personal details about every single abortion performed in the state and post them on a public website. Implementing the measure will “cost $281,285 the first year and $256,285 each subsequent year.” Here are the first eight questions that women will have to reveal:

1. Date of abortion
2. County in which abortion performed
3. Age of mother
4. Marital status of mother
(married, divorced, separated, widowed, or never married)
5. Race of mother
6. Years of education of mother
(specify highest year completed)
7. State or foreign country of residence of mother
8. Total number of previous pregnancies of the mother
Live Births
Miscarriages
Induced Abortions

I can't imagine any self-respecting state Supreme Court would uphold this invasion of privacy, but who knows. Sad.

Hunting for Wabbits

Joe "Elmer Fudd" Lieberman continues to be the shame of the Democratic Party. (Though, to be fair, he has a lot of competition.)

Former Democratic vice presidential nominee Lieberman (2000 seems like a 100 years ago, eh?) is the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee (check out the committee's Web site ... in the banner picture, it looks like Elmer Fudd is backhanding Sen. Collins' um, chest ... yes, I'm immature). Lieberman has added an amendment to the Homeland Security appropriations bill (American Prospect) that would bar any photos of detainee abuse at the hands of American forces from jurisdiction of the Freedom of Information Act. And since it's a Homeland Security bill, Republicans will rubber-stamp it and Democrats are sure to cower ... even though Democrats are in control. My head just exploded. (And I'd be remiss if I didn't add that this is exactly what the Obama White House wants: cover from Congress for illegal activity. Cowardly.)

Jameel Jaffer, of ACLU's National Security Project, is none to happy, as the ACLU has long been the champion of transparency in revealing these photos. (Side note: It's sad this burden of fighting for government accountability has fallen to the ACLU while the mainstream media follows the cues of Fox News and the like.) Jaffer:

Congress should not give the government the authority to hide evidence of its own misconduct, and if it does grant that authority, the Secretary of Defense should not invoke it. If this shameful provision passes, Secretary Gates should take into account the importance of transparency to the democratic process, the extraordinary importance of these photos to the ongoing debate about the treatment of prisoners, and the likelihood that the suppression of these photos will ultimately be far more damaging to our national security than their disclosure would be. The last administration’s decision to endorse torture undermined the United States’ moral authority and compromised its security. The failure of the current administration to fully confront the abuses of the last administration will only compound these harms.

From endorsing John McCain in '08 to stunts like this, Joe Lieberman exemplifies the worst of the Democratic Party. Not only does he look (and sometimes sound) like Elmer Fudd, but he's adopted the ineptitude and self-delusion the cartoon character possessed. Let's hope 2012 is his last year in Washington.

SDS Afghanistan March

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Thirty-two, 10/7/09 - Going in for Blackwater and Chevron.)

8 Years, How Many More?

Today is the eighth anniversary of the war in Afghanistan.

Opposition is growing.

There will be protests.

And here's who pays for it.

More who pay.

And wars aren't free.

We have the power to stop this. Use your voice.

Be Afraid

Modern-day propaganda from NBC Nightly News:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

What paranoia, and over EIGHT years after 9/11. I know there was a spate of terror busts recently, one in Denver where the "anti-terror" video NBC features is running. But this blatant fearmongering, especially from the media, is deplorable. The NBC reporter explicitly insists the threat of terrorism in America has not receded since 9/11. How appropriate, as the 8th anniversary of the war in Afghanistan is tomorrow.

(Bonus forehead slap: John Elway is one of their pitchmen. Tell us John, how did you feel after 9/11? Okay, thanks, now don't you have golf tournament to attend.)

A Metaphor?

(Photo: 365 Project, Day Thirty-one, 10/6/09 - My new prized possession, a very violent framed print of a bear, eight swarming dogs, one downed man and another on his way. Bizarre.)

How Near, How Far, How Lost They All Are

Why Obama is Bush when it comes to terror policy and executive power, by Glenn Greenwald (read it all if you can).

It's right in front of us, but too many refuse to believe it, or acknowledge its existence. Obama's not even a liberal. Some very dangerous precedents set by Bush are being validated by someone who many believed was real Change. Voters of Obama were in three main camps, I think: Some had the faith, some were highly skeptical but would never vote for a Republican and others just wanted to get Bush out (That's me) and say if this guy's high claims can be matched, that's extra pudding on top.

But for me, the events and feelings caused by the Bush administration will never leave my brain. I've said it before, but I am a child of George W. Bush's America. Those were formative years, times I will never forget. That power was more influential in me than the election of Barack Obama. While they certainly complement each other in unequivocal ways, my astonishment and disgust during the Bush administration will affect me for the rest of my life. Period.

Update: 5:ll - The White House is bringing members of Congress into the White House to share their thoughts on what to do in Afghanistan. I'll give that a sarcastic "fascinating." But the last paragraph is a conversation starter, if not baldly troubling:

White House officials say Obama is not focusing on antiwar protesters -- neither the more than 60 who were arrested yesterday at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue nor the handful outside the White House gates today -- or on a MoveOn email petition circulating asking him for a clear military exit strategy.

How will he handle growing antiwar pressure from the left? This will be the first time he's had to deal with THE issue for a modern American president: a flagging, drawn out, costly war on your watch.

Let Him Get Some Sleep

Was Obama's trip to Copenhagen to push Chicago for the 2016 Olympics a product of possibly the two most powerful in people in his life steering him there: his wife Michelle and their friend and presidential adviser Valerie Jarrett? I believe Andrew Sullivan says so:

Most of all, it was a dreadful piece of judgment. The president deserves every inevitable brickbat from the right; and David Axelrod should know better than to have left his boss this vulnerable at this critical juncture. I suspect the input of Valerie Jarrett and Michelle Obama. But the buck stops with Obama and he blew this one big time.

I mean, it may be hard to blame anyone since both Jarrett and Michelle have Chicago in their blood. And Obama isn't far behind. But I think he's onto something when he says it was still arrogant (but not narcissistic) of Obama thinking his clout as the American leader meant a lock. I don't think that's unfair to say. Good intentions mixed with the status of high power is quite intoxicating, I'm sure. But this happens with every president. I don't think this will hurt his political status much, if at all. But at the same time, no one will forget when Obama went to Denmark on a tight schedule in the middle of many major ongoing policy debates in Washington in attempt to deliver the Olympics to Chicago and didn't succeed. Just a historical observation.

Thy Heart of Darkness

The DC city council is poised to pass a same-sex marriage law in Washington. That's a big step, yes, but that really doesn't mean anything when in comes to the law of the land that says DC will let Congress decide their fate. So this is up to Congress (spineless and/or two-faced Democrats with a side of Draconian, knuckle-dragging and /or greed-driven Republicans) to ultimately pass.

One guy instrumental in the effort for a similar to pass earlier this year: Freshman Representative Jason Chaffetz of Utah. Yes, Utah, that big, beautiful empty state. Here's Mr. Chaffetz this time around (from the Post ... the whole thing is worth a read to re-acqaint yourself with our government's posture on gay marriage):

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who tried to derail a bill passed by the council this year recognizing same-sex marriages performed elsewhere, also expressed doubts that he or other Republicans could be major obstacles.

"Given the gravity of health care and other tumultuous debate, it hasn't got much attention," said Chaffetz, the ranking member of the House subcommittee that oversees the District. "You couple that with the Democrats' stranglehold on the rules, and the minority is left somewhat impotent."

Chaffetz said he plans to fight the council's bill, but he also said the issue could become entangled in a debate among Republicans on Capitol Hill over how far the party should go in speaking out against same-sex marriage.

"It's going to be a big symbolic issue, and the question is, are conservatives really going to make a stand?" said Linda McClain, a law professor at Boston University who is studying the same-sex marriage debate.

Come up with your own cynical joke on how the new guy from Morman Town became the "ranking member of the House subcommittee that oversees the District." Good stuff.

But look at the language he uses. He says not only is Congress busy with health care and "other debate," but "with the Democrats' stranglehold on the rules ... the minority is left somewhat impotent."

Impotent, Jason? Nice one. You are new, aren't you?

But really, he's saying "We're too damn busy trying to block health care (what should be a human right) to pull our usual shenanigans on gay marriage. It just USED TO BE our go-to issue (Something tells me it will come back in the next election year). We've moved on."


But that resignation in that last paragraph is a good sign. Less resistance. Maybe even changing attitudes? Or am I letting a moment of optimism creep in?