With friends like Pakistan's dictator...

we really don't need enemies, do we?

Pakistan is playing out as an all-too-typical example of US foreign policy. Back a military dictator who ousted the elected leaders because they aren't tough enough. Let him clear out those who believe in democracy; they're easy. Push the whole country to side with the true crazies willing to hide in the mountains or the jungles or wherever.

For a while it looks good, then it all turns ugly. This is just happening more quickly than Central America or Iran.

And we even invited Bhutto to return and get killed, which, you know, you could have predicted. She did. Bush and Condi, who came up with the invite? They aren't so bright.

Whether our friend the general did it himself or just let the radicals do it -- say, in exchange for another few years of safety for the Taliban and Osama in the wilds of Pakistan -- matters little. Once again, we mucked about in another country's business, got in bad with a bad guy, and we'll be paying for it for years.

At least, we only pay theoretically. Pakistanis pay with their lives.

BTW, an addendum to Michael's Huckabee post. Woody Guthrie wrote a great song, 'Jesus Christ for President,' recorded by Billy Bragg. All that's new today is the lack of subtlety.

The Reason For the Season

So Mike "Screw this Separation of Church and State Crap" Huckabee was surprised to find that someone would criticize his campaign ad saying that the mythological Jesus Christ is the reason for the season. I'm sure he knows there are other cultures that have non-Christian mythologies that explain why they are celebrating the pagan-started Winter Solstice season. But there aren't as many of those people in the swing voting states as there are Christians. And bashing a minority group is an excellent way of shoring up support in the majority (see "illegal aliens, trotting them out when you're in political trouble" entry in Wikipedia).

Here's the problem: It's YOUR reason for the season, Mikey, not OUR reason for the season.

His world view presents Christian mythology as fact, not faith, and categorizes non-Christians as wrong. I have a real problem with a political leader who can't distinguish between faith and fact. Instead of aspiring to lead a multi-cultural country, he positions himself as the leader for the biggest voting bloc - and screw the rest of them. Well, I guess it works in some Middle East countries, it's good enough for the Midwest.

It's a coward's campaign that places personal status over the long-term good of the nation. A leader stands up for the rights of the minority in the face of the majority. A politician counts electoral votes and does whatever it takes to win 50 percent plus one - regardless of the damage it does to the nation.

A Giftmas Card Tale

So gift cards get a bad rap; they're the easy way out, they show no thought, etc., etc. Sit down, boys and girls, and let me tell you a tale.

For those of us who live without credit cards, December can be a bit tight. School's out, so the income slows down a bit; there's gifts, licenses for next year's race program, etc. My wife said a few days ago, "You know, I'm passing by Starbucks nowadays, because when I want to drop in and buy something, I keep thinking about what I could do with that couple of dollars, and I just drive by."

So this morning, when she opened her gifts, among them was a gift card for Starbucks. I said, "We may not be rich, I promise you we'll never be so poor that you can't afford coffee."

The tears streaming down her face were all the confirmation I needed that the gift card was exactly the right gift.

Happy Holidays.

The Case Against The Primary

It's time to do away with the primary election.

Note the rise of Mike "Screw This Separation of Church and State Crap" Huckabee, who now leads national polls in the race for the Republican nomination. (I mean, really, can you even say 'President Huckabee' without laughing?) Rasmussen Reports notes that Huckabee's rise is because of the party's conservative wing - among the GOP's self-proclaimed moderates and liberals, he's not even on the podium.

Once again, thanks to the primary system, the nation will set itself up for a choice between two candidates who have succeeded in doing one thing better than anyone else - advancing their party's line furthest from the mainstream.

And they wonder why the moderates stay home on Election Day.

The argument against intelligence

More on Iran: The Wall Street Journal has an editorial today castigating Bush for even acknowledging the intelligence community's finding that Iran has no nuclear weapons authority.

OpinionJournal, which has little resemblance to the staid though too-safe Journal or any other sane media outlet, says "We reported earlier this week that the authors of this Iran NIE include former State Department officials who have a history of hostility to Mr. Bush's foreign policy. But the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with Mr. Bush. Too often he has appointed, or tolerated, officials who oppose his agenda, and failed to discipline them even when they have worked against his policies."

In short, the right-wing Journal argues he should have rejected the Intelligence and continued a misguided policy.

The rest of us, of course, know Bush has never let intelligence get in the way of his agenda, and likely never will.

When the bombs away, Bush will play

The copout defense for the war on Iraq is this: Bush and the boys really, really believed Saddam had WMDs, so it's OK they took us to war, even though they were dead wrong.

It wasn't that they had all that oil, that expats like Chalabi were going to cut us in when they took it over, or that they tried to kill W.'s daddy. It wasn't like they were determined long before Bush even took office to get 'er done, and 9.11 provided a convenient excuse.

Well, the old deja voodoo is back again.

Sure, after months of dumbeats on the march to war with Iran, the White House did smartly reveal intelligence reports that say the ayatollahs haven't worked on nuclear weapons for years. That kind of stuff can come back to bite you on the ass.

But once those reports were out of the way, Bush and the boys immediately insisted Iran was still a threat, and the right-wing echo chamber picked it up from Fox News to the Wall Street Journal edit page. The 'reform Iran' groups almost immediately jumped on the bandwagon. Like Chalabi and his folks before Iraq, they not only urge war but tell the administration it'll be easy.

The bottom line: Bush wants to invade Iran, wmds or no wmds, just as he did Iraq.

In fact, them not having nukes may just encourage him. After all, he named North Korea, Pakistan and Iraq as members of the Axis of Evil. But he invaded the one without the nukes.

In fact, if I was a wacko despot, I think I'd even now be bidding on centrifuges on eBay.

The Silence of the Scribes

As my esteemed colleague here posits, there are legitimate questions surrounding the "religious issues" race being run by Republican candidates Huckabee and Romney. So why aren't those political reporters, um, you know, ASKING those questions?

Think of them as embedded reporters, much like the syncopants deployed with the troops in the Middle East. If the reporter travelling with Romney starts making Romney look bad, then Romney drops out, and the reporter has to go back to the office and start writing lost-dog and school lunch stories again. In the world of reporterdom, there are few higher-status positions than being on the road with the president-to-be. Asking hard questions is a good way to bite the hand that's feeding your career.

Plus, on a much simpler-to-understand level, if you ask the candidate mean questions, then the candidate doesn't invite you to their press conferences any more. And if it's your job to BE at those press conferences, well, how long are you gonna keep your job?

In other words, reporters today have a vested, personal, economic interest in keeping their lips firmly affixed to a candidate's hind quarters. You'll have to turn to non-traditional news sources for honest, hard-hitting questions to be raised.

Sources like the Ram Files.

Mitt Romney, you're no John Kennedy

The media is filled with praise for Mitt getting up say that America is big enough and great enough not to hold religion against a presidential candidate. Even if that candidate happens to believe a snake-oil salesman was handed golden tablets and magic glasses by an angel to create a religion that allowed men to hold multiple wives.

OK, hey, we are.

But look a little closer. John Kennedy, way back when, said he wouldn't represent the pope because he believed in the separation of church and state. America believed him, enough said.

But Mitt wasn't talking about separation of church and state, except to say we have too much of it. He simply wants ore traditional evangelical Christian to believe he'll represent not Salt Lake City, but Lynchburg or wherever the Christian Right is headquartered these days.

JFK, to whom Mitt was glowingly compared in USA Today, said he wouldn't try to write his religious views into law.

Mitt has been traveling the country to say he'll do exactly that with the Christian Right's views on, oh, choice, abortion, marriage and so much more. If his religion doesn't matter, why is he running on religion's issues?

These are, of course, his views now, though he held different views when he was running for office in a Democratic state. So let the Christian Right question his Mormon beliefs. The rest of us just have to wonder if he has any beliefs of his own at all.

Election Year - Oh Yeah, The Middle Class ...

I could write for pages about the stupidity of the real estate industry during the past five years. Suffice it to say that when I was looking for a condo I could afford (I had a down payment, but no permanent job, so I thought I'd be modest) my realtor looked me in the eye and said, "You know, we could just get you a four-unit building and you could live in one."

No job, and he would have been able to find me a million dollar loan. No wonder the lending industry has the problems it has.

So with elections coming up and adjustable-inflation loans, well, adjusting, just like they are supposed to, what's the White House doing? Talking about freezing the interest rates on those loans, and turning to the taxpayer to make sure the poor investors who backed those insane loans don't lose any money.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20071130/us_nm/usa_housing_hazard_dc

Part of me is really bitter. I mean, I decided to pay a higher interest rate for a fixed-rate, fixed-term conventional loan. Now I find out I should have just been irresponsible, gotten in over my head, and waited for presidential candidates - desperate to A) Look like they're helping out Middle America and B) Actually bail out Wall Street - to come to the rescue.

But you know what? It's the same crap that Corporate America pulls on a daily basis - digging into the taxpayer's pocket to rescue it from its latest bad decision, poor investment, or just to line its pockets a little more.

So maybe I should be glad that in election season, at least the candidates have to pretend to include the middle class when giving away the bank. As we all know, telling Americans that they've made dumb decisions and will have to pay the consequences of those decisions is an excellent strategy for not getting elected.

Stickin' It To the Voting Public

BANGKOK (AFP) - Parliamentary candidates in Thailand's upcoming election are trying to buy the votes of elderly men by passing out free Viagra, a local government official said Friday.

No comment necessary ...

Quit Fighting, Already

I'm tired of headlines that read, "Smith, Jones Spar At Debate."

First, it raises unrealistic expectations. The only thing I can think of that would be more entertaining than hitting a politician would be kickin' back, eatin' popcorn and watching two or more of them smack each other around. If that happens, my money's on Hillary.

Secondly - and this is important - political leadership shouldn't be about fighting. I don't want any more arguments. I want solutions. I don't want to feel good about my candidate "beating up" someone else. I don't want to hear any more shouting.

I want quiet, reasonable people to talk to me like an adult. Is that so goddamned much to ask? Why is this so impossible?

Strange bedfellows in the GOP

Crazy GOP candidate Ron Paul got an unlike endorsement from the owner of the BunnyRanch brothel in Carson City, Nev., apparently due to some fevered, er, lobbying by bow-tied right-wing TV gasbag Tucker Carlson.


(Really, MSNBC reports. You can't make this stuff up.)


Seems that while traveling with Paul, Tuck -- famously deflated by losing a battle of political wits with comedian Jon Stewart -- called up a pal, the owner of the brothel. "Dennis Hof is a good friend of mine, so when we got to Nevada, I decided to call him up and see if he wanted to come check this guy out," Tucker said. My buddy the pimp. Really, he said it.


Hof showed up with two of his ladies, Brooke Taylor and a woman known as Air Force Amy, and all three were wowed. (The ladies didn't quite endorse; Amy perhaps balked because she supports the troops and Paul is anti-war.)


Now, for a true libertarian this would be no surprise. But Paul quite famously believes the US government is constitutionally prohibited from regulating anything EXCEPT a woman's womb, which could mean career trouble for the trio.


But Hof has endorsed him, just as Tucker Carlson apparently endorses the BunnyRanch. And shoot, who'd know more about GOP politics these days than a trio of pros -- except maybe a page or two.

Tyranny of the truly insane

So I was looking at some computerized "What kind of politics do you believe in?" matrix on a motorcycle racing bulletin board and realized that, as always, Dilbert was right.

Reality is controlled by the most insane.

It's no longer about appealing to the majority. It's about appeasing the minority who have wrapped their little hard-wired brains around one core idea so tightly that they see the world through that filter only. Vote against my interests, I'll probably never know. I'm trying to earn a living. Worst thing'll happen is that I'll just ignore you and maybe vote for your opponent. But vote against their interests and they spend every last waking moment of their lives trying to destroy you, your family, your career. They'll spread innuendo about the orientation of your dog. Who are you going to cross, me or them?

And does it matter how many of each there are? A single true-believing "Them" can cause a politician or anyone else far more grief than a thousand busy-with-real-life "Me"-type characters.

It always works that way. An NFL-size team of loons decides to blow up some buildings in the U.S., and hundreds of millions in greatest nation in the history of history are reduced to shuffling shoeless through the airport, clutching their laptop computers, sphincters stretched out, yet grateful that the customs officer was so dedicated to making sure the bomb wasn't up there.

It's not about those of us who can see things from multiple points of view, consider multiple interests. It's about those of us whose entire lives revolve around making one thing happen - and who are willing to sacrifice personally to make that one thing happen.

Look, I'm all about dedication and hard work. I'm just not going to hold the rest of the country hostage to my political, religious, social and sexual views. And that puts me at a political disadvantage to those who will spend their weekends locked to their computers, firing off anti-whoever rhetoric into the electronic ether, and chain-calling congressional offices to make sure their views are heard and the consequences of crossing them clear.

So I'm penalized for having a life. A bit disenchanted? You could fuckin' say so. I guess there's another presidential campaign going on. I'll just say it right now - I'm voting for the guy with the widest stance. Ah, democracy ...



-- posted for M

If the president does it, it's not torture. really.

If the president does it, it's not illegal. That's the Nixonian defense of breaking and entering and wiretapping, among other things. Luckily, at the time, Democrats (and more than a few Republicans) had the sense to say 'no.'

It's a given, of course, that President Bush thinks the same way as Nixon. When it comes to wiretapping and waterboarding, if he orders it, it's OK. But when did we get a Democratic congress that agrees with him?

This week, they confirmed an attorney general who claimed he didn't really know what waterboarding was, or if it was really torture. Where's he been? He didn't anticipate he might be asked about it? This has been a method of torture since the Inquisition; as ABC News and many others have pointed out, the U.S. has long condemned this as torture when done to our guys.

Only in politics can someone testify to this sort of ignorance with a straight face and still get confirmed. I mean... really? If Al Queda tortured a U.S. soldier in Afghanistan with water until he thought he was drowing, the AG wouldn't know if that was a violation of international law?

Still, this AG did get confirmed. The Democratic Congress, which has already agreed that spying on Americans isn't illegal if the president does it, has approved an AG who isn't sure that waterboarding is all that bad and who apparently thinks it's not torture if the president orders it.

A new low in American law.

Talking back to the news

Every time I heard our failed president jump up and down screaming "I'm relevant, I'm relevant," and watch our Democratic Congress give him his way, I want to shake the screen and yell 'why.'

Here goes.