Another Corrupt Congress-Critter

Ah, I do enjoy it when one of the corrupt congress-critters gets caught. Today, it's John Shadegg:

The Arizona Democratic Party is accusing Republican U.S. Rep. John Shadegg of using his political-action committee to skirt laws that limit the amount of money donors can give a candidate.

Democrats say they have drafted a complaint to the Federal Election Commission, but Shadegg maintains nothing was done improperly and doubts whether the FEC will take action.

At issue is money that elections records show was transferred from Shadegg's
political-action committee into his election campaign.

Two Valley businessmen who made the maximum allowable individual donations to Shadegg's campaign in 2007 also wrote additional $5,000 checks to Shadegg's PAC, Leadership for America's Future. Eleven days later, on June 26, the PAC wrote two identical $5,000 checks to Shadegg.

Normally, such a transfer would not be noticed among thousands of dollars in contributions. But in the same reporting period, Shadegg's PAC received no other contributions and paid out only the $10,000.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0121shadegg0121.html

Have a pig, John. If you're unsure what it means, ask your colleague Rick Renzi. He's earned 4 tattooed pig awards.

Only 935?

The shrub administration told 935 lies in the lead up to the war with Iraq, according to a new study:

WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements
about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

The study concluded that the statements "were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."

Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq's links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell's 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080123/ap_on_go_pr_wh/misinformation_study

The total number seems low to me, but I admit that I never attempted to catalog all the lies. During the run up to the war, Sweaterman and I tried to keep some sort of track of all the lies, but I think we gave up in disgust. We settled on "everything they're saying is a lie", and we were right.
Can we impeach now?

The Economic Ride

In spite of today's news, I don't pretend to know much of anything about the economy. Except that it looks like a very big mess right now. While the news seems to be focusing on the stock market today, the actual problem is much more wide spread. Some observations:
The housing/mortgage crisis: It's bad enough that 2 million people could lose their homes. What's equally ominous is that the housing bubble has been the main thing propping up the U.S. economy since shrub took office. Beside those losing their homes, some 44.5 million Americans will watch the value of their homes diminish. That's a lot of lost capital.
Oil and the dollar: While oil is back down to around $88 a barrel, that is still a very high energy price. Coupled with the dollar's drop against other major currencies, the reliance on foreign resources will be impossible to maintain.
The deficit: Even worse than the mortgage crisis is the ongoing U.S. deficit crisis that has soared out of control under shrub's watch. The U.S. national debt now stands at a staggering $9 trillion. That amounts to over $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. The Iraq War fiasco will add another $2 trillion to the nation's debt. All of this is being financed by foreign investment, but as the dollar weakens that option will be less available. The financial and stock markets are collapsing as a result.
The Republican philosophy of tax cuts and spending cuts has weakened America's infrastructure, so that there is almost no domestic support system in place for those about to lose the life they've known.
For myself, in the words of Dylan "when you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." While I've been very frustrated by the slow local job market, I don't need very much to get by. I have no dependants or debts. But most of the people I know have a lot more at risk, and I'm worried for them. They are among the huge number of Americans facing a very scary situation.

You're Going to Need a Bigger Helicopter....

...Holy Jeebus!

Stocks plunge on recession fears

In the first hour of trading, the Dow was down 293.70, or 2.43 percent, at 11,805.60. The Dow was last below 12,000 in March 2007.

It's down 2.8% now and I've barely been following. NASDAQ down 3.0%

Shite. Shite, shite, shite.

Well, it's early. Let's see if they can recover or if they end up suspending trading because the market tries to move even lower even faster.

Also, for more (and, much better) analysis, check out BondDad's blog at (http://www.bonddad.blogspot.com/), but I'd have to say this kind of correction is long overdue.

But, putting Medicare and Social Security in the hands of Wall Street (like Bush wanted to do) doesn't sound like that smart of an idea now, does it?

Last Night's Debate

The "truce" of the Nevada debate didn't last, and the gloves came off. This was by far the most contentious debate so far, and the pettiness of the bickering will keep the talking heads entertained for days.
I was disgusted. As Clinton and Obama attacked each other over ever more minor nuance, I wanted to grab them both and say "stop doing the Republicans work for them." If this keeps up, the eventual nominee will go into the general election pre-damaged for the Republican nominee. Yes, the Republicans will attack the Democratic candidate with all manner of slime (it's what they do), and we should be prepared for it, but eating our own doesn't benefit the party or the country.
Here's Josh Marshall's take on it:

It's hard for me to think of much good from this debate. If you view debates like a boxing match, I guess it was lively and perhaps entertaining, in the sense that a good boxing match can be, though the fighting was more intense than well executed. But that's only if you have no investment in the outcome. If you're watching this with a mind to wanting one of these three to be president in 2009, as I do, it wasn't a great thing to watch.

One observation stands out to me from this debate. Hillary can be relentless and like a sledgehammer delivering tendentious but probably effective attacks. But whatever you think of those attacks, Obama isn't very good at defending himself. And that's hard for me to ignore when thinking of him as a general election candidate.

In most of these cases -- such as the Reagan issue -- I think Obama's remarks have been unobjectionable but ambiguous and certainly susceptible to both misunderstanding and intentional misrepresentation. And if you're going to talk like that -- nuance, as we used to say -- be able to defend it when people play with your words. And I don't see it.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/064349.php

It's this type of mud-slinging that leaves so many Americans disgusted with politics, and leads to the lousy government we currently have.

We deserve better.

Added: I agree with Dave Johnson:

Now with that said let me add that our candidates should all be going after Republicans and defending each other. I will strongly support candidates who have an instinct to defend fellow Democrats against Republican attacks, in any race for any office. I will strongly support candidates who make it clear that they understand that the current Republican party has devolved into something unknown in American history, something dangerous and undemocratic and particularly dishonest.

http://seeingtheforest.com/

Any of the three Democrats will be an improvement on the current administration, but first we have to win.

A Scary Thing

The Russians are breeding super cockroaches in space!

VORONEZH, January 17 (RIA Novosti) - Cockroaches conceived in space onboard the Russian Foton-M bio satellite have developed faster and become hardier than 'terrestrial' ones, a research supervisor said on Thursday.

The research team has been monitoring the cockroaches since they were born in October. The scientists established that their limbs and bodies grew faster.

"What is more, we have found out that the creatures... run faster than ordinary cockroaches, and are much more energetic and resilient," Dmitry Atyakshin said.

http://en.rian.ru/science/20080117/97179313.html

I'm having an episode of paranoia at the very idea.

One More Year

The countdown begins. Only 366 more days.

Know Your Elements

As I spend the day recovering, and preparing for football, I found a fun guide to the Periodic Table of Elements. http://www.periodictable.com/. Fun for all us geeks.

More Trees

(picture taken by Zymurgian on the San Juan river)

Pruning more apple trees today. Yesterday was cold, but not too bad as long as I kept moving, and today we should get above freezing, so I wont complain.
Strange Bumper sticker seen yesterday:

"I feel like walking on a pile of baby ducks"

I have no idea what that means, but it sounds way too angry.
Also, a graffiti sighting that I enjoyed:

"The Bush Doctrine: Speak incoherently and hit people with a stick"

Enjoy your day, and if your in Nevada or South Carolina, be political.

The Boobie is Late

Sorry I'm late on the Boobie. Blame the trees.

Did I Complain Yesterday?

Today is even colder. With wind chill, it's between -7 and -17 degrees. Needless to say, I didn't work pruning Apple trees today. Instead, I took a dear friend to the airport. She's traveling back home to be with her Grandmother who's passing appears imminent (my sympathies, but this is the end of a long illness). Now I have her car for the next 10 days to 2 weeks. Regular readers know that I choose to live car-free (and driving today reminded me how aggravating driving can be), so I don't plan to use the car. But that wind sure makes it tempting.

Omar bin Laden

This is one of those stories that wont make the evening news, but that I found interesting. Osama's son Omar wants to be a peace activist:

CAIRO, Egypt — Omar Osama bin Laden bears a striking resemblance to his notorious father _ except for the dreadlocks that dangle halfway down his back. Then there's the black leather biker jacket.

The 26-year-old does not renounce his father, al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, but in an interview with The Associated Press, he said there is better way to defend Islam than militancy: Omar wants to be an "ambassador for peace" between Muslims and the West.

Omar _ one of bin Laden's 19 children _ raised a tabloid storm last year when he married a 52-year-old British woman, Jane Felix-Browne, who took the name Zaina Alsabah. Now the couple say they want to be advocates, planning a 3,000-mile horse race across North Africa to draw attention to the cause of peace.

"It's about changing the ideas of the Western mind. A lot of people think Arabs _ especially the bin Ladens, especially the sons of Osama _ are all terrorists. This is not the truth," Omar told the AP last week at a cafe in a Cairo shopping mall.

Of course, many may have a hard time getting their mind around the idea of "bin Laden: peacenik."

"Omar thinks he can be a negotiator," said Alsabah, who is trying to bring her husband to Britain. "He's one of the only people who can do this in the world."

http://www.alternet.org/wire/#74154

Not sure that it will have any impact, but I think it's certainly worth talking to him. If nothing else, he has an interesting perspective.

Bloomberg

I got the "draft Bloomberg" email that, as far as I can tell, went to everyone who ever used the word "politics" online. While I can't imagine anyone supporting him, Andy Borowitz has the best take on it:

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg is “still trying to decide” whether to buy the U.S. presidency, aides to Mr. Bloomberg confirmed today, with the sticking point reportedly being the steep price of such an acquisition.

In recent weeks, Mr. Bloomberg had been sending out positive signals about his interest in buying the highest office in the land, raising hopes among supporters that he might be preparing to throw his wallet in the ring.

In a speech in Oklahoma last week, for example, the mayor told an enthralled crowd, “In these divisive times, I believe that the American people are yearning for the
leadership of a whiny billionaire.”

Mr. Bloomberg even floated a possible campaign slogan: “Vote For Me and I’ll Give you $10,000.”

Aides close to the mayor indicated that there were other positive signs as well,
noting that Mr. Bloomberg had recently transferred $2 billion into his day-to-day checking account.

“With that kind of money, you could either buy the White House or ten Mitt Romneys,” said one aide familiar with the cash transfer.

But according to one of Mr. Bloomberg’s advisers who spoke on condition of anonymity, falling real estate prices in the U.S. may have given the mayor cold feet about buying the presidency.

“At this point, buying the United States isn’t looking like such a good investment,” the adviser said. “At the end of the day, Mike might be better off buying Canada.”

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

Actually, Bloomberg is the corporations relief pitcher if the Republican nominee looks like a loser and the Democratic nominee isn't Clinton.

White House Recycles

In the most environmentally friendly move yet by this administration, the White House is recycling:

The White House has acknowledged recycling its backup computer tapes of e-mail before October 2003, raising the possibility that many electronic messages — including those pertaining to the CIA leak case — have been taped over and are gone forever.

The disclosure came minutes before midnight Tuesday under a court-ordered deadline that forced the White House to reveal information it has previously refused to provide.

After all, we wouldn't want those backup tapes to end up in a landfill, or worse, littering Henry Waxmen's office.
Added: I should just leave the snark to the pros. dday at Digby:

Look, if you want to criticize the White House for actually showing bold leadership in controlling our runaway back-up computer tape consumption in this country, fine. But don't turn around and claim that you want to stop global warming then. You know how much carbon is released into the air through the production of back-up computer tapes? Maybe you want to see Florida sink into the Atlantic Ocean, and if so, go ahead and keep using those computer tapes!

I wrote my post before I read this. I should know better.

A Milestone

This is the 1,000th post on Pygalgia, less than a full year after I started blogging. When I began, I had no idea where this thing would go. I still have no idea where it's going, but it's been an interesting little forum along the way, and we even have awards for making the journey. Thanks to Gandhisxmas, Sweaterman, and Zymurgian for your contributions. And a VERY BIG thanks to readers and commentors; you make it feel worthwhile.

Thoughts on Last Nights Debate

I watched last nights debate, with the interest only a political junkie could generate, and here are a few of my thoughts:
* The moderators were terrible. Tim Russert tried so hard to generate conflict with "identity politics gotcha" questions, but he failed. And he looked small and petty in the end. The thinly veiled "are you a racist", "are you a sexist" questions were an attempt to provoke a fight, but Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all chose to remain above that fray, and instead seemed to be laughing at him. Brian Williams threw in the email spam "Obama is a secret muslim" as a question, but it merely made him look foolish.
*Clearly, Obama and Clinton settled on a truce. Along with Edwards, they repeated a message that "we're all family as Democrats", and there were no cheap shots during the debate. The differences expressed were policy based, not personal.
*While not as substantive as I would have liked, the debate was more substantive than previous debates. On economic issues, Edwards shined, but Clinton and Obama were also solid. The differences were more of nuance than policy or belief.
*I'm not calling a winner, but it was a bit of a step forward overall. Less trivial, more policy. The media really wants the petty trivia to dominate, but all three candidates articulated their positions well. The current media climate doesn't want a serious policy debate, or we'd still be hearing Biden, Dodd, and Richardson.
*It ain't over yet.

Too Damn Cold

My plans for today have been shot down by the weather. I had planned on working today, back pruning more apple trees. But the friend that I was working for decided "it's too damn cold", so not today. It's 15 degrees with 15-20 mph winds, so it feels like zero. My response is mixed. I really need the money, and was ready to layer up enough to make the temperature bearable. But I wasn't enthusiastic. Worse, tomorrow is forecast to be even colder. Maybe Friday.

Scimitar Rattling

I couldn't resist posting this AP photo of our shrub in action. He almost looks dumb enough to cut his own head off.

Taking the Fun Out of Michigan

Today's Michigan primary lost all it's fun for us political junkies, given the lack of Democratic participation. Too bad. I would have been interested in how Obama and Edwards fared, but it's hard for me to get excited about a race between Clinton and "uncommitted" (and Dennis Kucinich). For the record, I'll root for "uncommitted", but I don't like their campaign style.
On the Republican side, it looks like a race between Romney and McCain, with Romney desperate for a win. Given that both scare me, I can't generate any enthusiasm about the race. I'll predict/guess that McCain wins by a small percentage by picking up some Democratic voters who aren't enthusiastic about either Clinton or "uncommitted."
Update: Called for Romney before the polls were closed? Strange. And on the Dem side, "uncommitted" is coming in second.

Rejecting Reality

Our shrub has decided that mere facts shouldn't be enough to prevent a war with Iran. As he travels the middle east trying to push an Israeli-Palestinian "peace plan" by demonizing Iran (yeah, I have no idea how that works), he's now rejecting the NIE:

In public, President Bush has been careful to reassure Israel and other allies that he still sees Iran as a threat, while not disavowing his administration's recent National Intelligence Estimate. That NIE, made public Dec. 3, embarrassed the administration by concluding that Tehran had halted its weapons program in 2003, which seemed to undermine years of bellicose rhetoric from Bush and other senior officials about Iran's nuclear ambitions. But in private conversations with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert last week, the president all but disowned the document, said a senior administration official who accompanied Bush on his six-nation trip to the Mideast. "He told the Israelis that he can't control what the intelligence community says, but that [the NIE's] conclusions don't reflect his own views" about Iran's nuclear-weapons program, said the official, who would discuss intelligence matters only on the condition of anonymity.

Bush's behind-the-scenes assurances may help to quiet a rising chorus of voices inside Israel's defense community that are calling for unilateral military action against Iran. Olmert, asked by NEWSWEEK after Bush's departure on Friday whether he felt reassured, replied: "I am very happy." A source close to the Israeli leader said Bush first briefed Olmert about the intelligence estimate a week before it was published, during talks in Washington that preceded the Annapolis peace conference in November. According to the source, who also refused to be named discussing the issue, Bush told Olmert he was uncomfortable with the findings and seemed almost apologetic. (bolds mine)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/91673

The whole confrontation with Iran is the worst possible idea that has come out of shrub's little mind. Given that both Russia and China have strong ties with Iran, and that the current American economy can't support another war, how the hell can shrub get away with this kind of bullshit?

I wish we could just lock him in a rubber room with a bunch of toy soldiers for the next year, and that we'll elect a sane president who will actually engage in diplomacy with Iran.

Peace Promotion

More on the shrub's work to promote peace in the middle east:

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - The United States has agreed in principle to provide Israel with better "smart bombs" than those it plans to sell Saudi Arabia under a regional defense package, senior Israeli security sources said on Sunday.

Keen to bolster Middle East allies against an ascendant Iran, the Bush administration last year proposed supplying Gulf Arab states with some $20 billion in new weapons, including Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bomb kits for the Saudis.

The plan has angered Israel's backers in Washington, who say the JDAMs, which give satellite guidance for bombs, may one day be used against the Jewish state or at least blunt its power to deter potential foes. Israel has had JDAMs since 1990 and has used them extensively in a 2006 offensive in Lebanon.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080113/pl_nm/arms_israel_saudi_dc

The only American industry that is thriving is the weapons industry. And we're only too happy to sell to all sides. Buy war bombs now!

Shrub and Iran

Our shrub is in the middle east, trying to tell everybody how evil Iran is, and spreading his version of democracy.

ABU DHABI, United Arab Emirates, Jan 13 -- President Bush accused Iran Sunday of undermining peace in Lebanon, funding terrorist groups, trying to intimidate its neighbors and refusing to be open about its nuclear program and ambitions.

In a speech described by the White House as the centerpiece of his eight-day trip to the Middle East, Bush tried to speak directly to the people of Iran as he urged nations to help the United States "confront this danger before it is too late."

"You have a right to live under a government that listens to your wishes, respects your talents and allows you to build better lives for your families," Bush said to Iranians. "Unfortunately, your government denies you these opportunities, and threatens the peace and stability of your neighbors. So we call on the regime in Tehran to heed your will, and to make itself accountable to you."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/13/AR2008011300342.html?hpid=topnews

Lovely piece of rhetoric, telling the Iranians what sort of government they should have. We could use a government that listens to our wishes, too.
Meanwhile, shrub shows the world how we get our allies to help in the "peace" process:

Bush is trying to persuade Arab countries to join U.S. efforts to pressure Iran, though many have displayed ambivalence about the administration's campaign amid a new U.S. intelligence report that concluded Iran stopped a nuclear weapons program in 2003.

The president will travel Monday to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, viewed by many inside and out of the administration as the lynchpin of its efforts to develop an anti-Iran coalition. As part of an effort to show its commitment to Saudi Arabia, a senior administration official said the White House plans to notify Congress about a substantial package of arms sales for Saudi Arabia; it seemed likely to be on the order of $20 billion.

A $20 billion arms package is just the thing to help pacify the middle east, isn't it?

Makes Sense to Me

Another busy day, but here's some lyrics from Widespread Panic:

I was talking to a homeless drunk about religion
He said "It's all I got, but it ain't much
'Cause the way I feel these days,
I'd rather have a gun than a crutch"


Well, that makes sense to me
It makes sense to me, I must confess
That makes sense to me
It makes sense to me, I must confess


Listen to a little girl, she was a runaway.
She said "My daddy treated me like a slave.
Soiled me in my momma bed when I was just 15.
That's why I had to lay him in his grave!"


Well, that makes sense to me
It makes sense to me, I must confess
That makes sense to me
It makes sense to me, I must confess


Talking to a black man from Atlanta.
He said "The time has come to take what's mine.
And if I must bust a few heads to achieve justice,
My righteous cause will well explain the crime!"


Well, that makes sense to me
It makes sense to me, I must confess
That makes sense to me
It makes sense to me, I must confess


Well, that makes sense to me
It makes sense to me, I must confess
That makes sense to me
It makes sense to me, I must confess

A song that fits my mood. (And you can find your own youtube videos; I don't do video).

Aches (and some pains)

So I was out working a side job today. Normally, I don't say much about my various not-full-time jobs, but today left me sore. I spent the day pruning apple trees.
I'm a fairly physical guy, and I've done my share of hard labor. Many of my recent temp work has involved moving large, heavy objects. I'm good at that.
Pruning trees involves a lot of reaching over your head. I haven't done that as much. Certain muscles are telling me that. Reaching overhead for an object is one thing. Reaching overhead for hours hurts. At least, in certain muscles.
Where's my masseuse when I need her?
p.s. I shouldn't complain. Zymurgian made a killer dinner.

A Friday Boobie

I'm out all day today, so here's your Friday Boobie.

One Way to Stop Wire Tapping

If you've got any terrorist phone calls to make, now is the time:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Telephone companies cut off FBI wiretaps used to eavesdrop on suspected criminals because of the bureau's repeated failures to pay phone bills on time, according to a Justice Department audit released Thursday.

The faulty bookkeeping is part of what the audit, by the Justice Department's inspector general, described as the FBI's lax oversight of money used in undercover investigations. Poor supervision of the program also allowed one agent to steal $25,000, the audit said.

More than half of 990 bills to pay for telecommunication surveillance in five unidentified FBI field offices were not paid on time, the report shows. In one office alone, unpaid costs for wiretaps from one phone company totaled $66,000.

And at least once, a wiretap used in a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act investigation — the highly secretive and sensitive cases that allow eavesdropping on suspected terrorists or spies — "was halted due to untimely payment."

"We also found that late payments have resulted in telecommunications carriers actually disconnecting phone lines established to deliver surveillance results to the FBI, resulting in lost evidence," according to the audit by Inspector General Glenn A. Fine.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jgPRrAOa7_9-xd_LD8Ogt3ZXZ8JgD8U34BGG1

They're too incompetent to pay their bills.

Easily Confused

(pic of pundits analyzing New Hampshire voters)

There's a lot of analysis of the New Hampshire vote (click on yesterday's graphic from the NYTimes for a whole lotta data), but I'm confused by the correlation of votes and views on the Iraq war. On the Democratic side, the "out of Iraq" vote went to Clinton?

Of the candidates, Richardson was the strongest on withdrawal from Iraq, followed by Obama. Clinton has taken a much slower approach, so how did she win amongst the demographic?
On the Republican side, the results are even weirder. Look at the "approve" and "disapprove" and how the votes breakdown:

McCain, "stay in Iraq 100 years", won the vote of those who disapprove of the Iraq war? As Kevin Drum observes:

Granted: voters are often irrational. And the differences between Obama/Clinton and Romney/McCain on the war are fairly small. Still, Obama is the one who opposed the war from the start and has been more aggressive about calling for a withdrawal. Shouldn't he be getting more support from the get-out-now crowd? And although Romney supports the war, McCain is the dead-endest of the dead-enders. If you don't like the war, shouldn't he be your least favorite candidate?

I'm not sure what explains this. On the Democratic side, Hillary has recently been taking a harder line on withdrawal, and maybe that's showing up here. Or maybe it's just that women are more likely to want to get out of Iraq fast and also more likely to support Hillary. Or maybe Iraq isn't as big a voting issue as we think.

The Republican side is even odder. Why would voters who disapprove of the war overwhelmingly support McCain? Are they reacting to the fact that McCain is constantly claiming that he "disapproved" of the conduct of the war? Has McCain's uber-hawkishness not gotten a lot of play? Or what?

Anyway, not the biggest deal in the world, and it's only one state. But still, a bid odd.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/

Maybe Iraq has faded as an issue for voters, but it should still be a factor. No wonder the polling numbers are so slippery. The voters aren't predictable. But as a long time political junkie, I'm confused.

Campaigns and the Media

It appears that Bill Richardson will drop out of the campaign. I've made no secret that, in my opinion, Bill Richardson would be the best person to have as President out of the current crop of candidates. His resume is about as impressive as you could get, and in my own conversations with him (before he was a candidate) I have been impressed by his diverse fund of knowledge. But the reality of modern presidential politics also includes marketability. And Bill never had that.

MERRIMACK, N.H. - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson ended his campaign for the presidency Wednesday after twin fourth-place finishes that showed his impressive credentials could not compete with his rivals' star power.

Richardson planned to announce the decision Thursday, according to two people close to the governor with knowledge of the decision. They spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the governor's announcement.

Richardson had one of the most wide-ranging resumes of any candidate ever to run for the presidency, bringing experience from his time in Congress, President Clinton's Cabinet, in the New Mexico statehouse as well as his unique role as a freelance diplomat. As a Hispanic, he added to the unprecedented diversity in the Democratic field that also included a black and a woman.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080110/ap_on_el_pr/richardson

But unlike Mike Huckabee, who pulled off that feat on the Republican side, Richardson never really put it together. He took a much stronger anti-war stand on Iraq than his rivals, but he was also prone to some positions well to the right of the others, like his support for a constitutional amendment requiring a federal budget. His public performances were uneven at best. After numerous lackluster debate performances and some dreadful television appearances--like the time on Meet the Press when he pandered too much claiming to a fan of both the Red Sox AND the Yankees--he had seemingly campaigned himself out of contention for even the VP slot.

Richardson had by far the most impressive resume of anyone in the race. But people don't vote for resumes, and he never came up with a compelling enough reason for people to vote for him instead of one of the big three. After last night's performance, where he received only 5% of the vote, his fate was sealed.

http://www.dailykos.com/

I'm sorry to see him leave the race, but he really never stood a chance. As much as a political junkie and policy wonk as I am, I grimaced at his debate performances. He was running for VP at best, or secretary of state (which he still might get). Our current media system favors style over substance, and Clinton, Obama, and Edwards all have style. We live in a society where the President is a "star" (although how shrub got the role is beyond me) and the 30 second "sound bite" is more important than the actual policy. If experience and policy mattered to the electorate, we'd be looking at a race between Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, but none of the three look good on TV.
Oh well, my favorite choice for President hasn't been a viable candidate during my lifetime. I'm used to trying to elect a "acceptable" candidate (Carter, Clinton, Gore, Kerry), rather than the one who I thought would be the best President.
Added: Some sources are denying the story, but I don't have a link yet.

Where are we going? And why am i in this handbasket?

Of the four writers contributing to this blog, I am by far the least informed of politics. I can hardly define the differences between Democrats and Republicans, much less what is a "pundit"(sounds sanskrit?), or a "neocon" or many other nebulous terms we hear of so often these days.
Frankly, defining " American"- sans geography- is the hardest one of all. Ain't it? Unless you are so sure that Dems or Repubs are the real "volk"
I am already way over my head here. But I want to dip my toes in this stagnant puddle with the rest of ya'll. I may be dumb, but I'm not stupid- I am just a guy who enjoys making his own ale -why do we (whatever that is) have only TWO political parties pretending to represent us? Why is it that Independents, Greens, Libertarians, etc haven't a chance of media coverage? This is what I hear- BARACKHILLARRYHILLARYBARACKHILLBILLBARK ad nauseum. This disgusts me. Personally, I find Kucenich and Paul rather noteworthy (one of my favorite journalists- Bill Moyers- takes the time to interview 'em) But how many others with real ideas we'll NEVER hear from, because they are not landed-gentry, because those jerks who run the t.v.(or NPR- mind you) can't classify them into what they consider charismatic; marketable.
So am I venturing too far into the vapid, boring political puddle by asserting that whatever befalls us is up to the Media... Many of my fellow Americans are even dumber than I am (I'm smart enough not to own a t.v.) Do not underestimate the power of lighting, amplification, and editing. When Joe Six-pack tunes in to Fox coverage on presidential contenders, or, Julianna Chai, or Billy Bible, will said folks not be swayed by the roar of the teeming BARACKAHILLARYBARACKABARKO roar? I maintain, Human beings are far more likely to make decisions based on their emotions, before intellect.
Calm, collected, rational discourse regarding politics in our society does maybe exist. Perhaps somewhere in the oversaturated inanity of our blogoshere. Certainly, it did once, in the taverns, where insurgents such as Jefferson and Adams and other noteables (pundits?) shared ideas over a pint of ale.
Those dudes sure had a lot to deal with. But not Fox, CNN, and NPR. Redcoats of our age...

The Ongoing Job Hunt

I'm really sick of job hunting. I'm about to go out and drop off a couple more resumes, and the interview that was snowed out on Monday is rescheduled for tomorrow, but I'm feeling rather frustrated.
How do you get one of those plushy political pundit jobs? The blowhards on the radio don't seem to have any more insight than I do.
All of this is a roundabout way of saying that I'm broke, so if anybody feels that they can make a small donation (button on the right), I would be most appreciative.

Scoring New Hampshire

Every political blogger is starting the morning by analyzing New Hampshire, and I don't want to be left out. Given that the professional pundits are all over the map, anything I say can be considered equally profound (or not).
There's a lot of surprise at Clinton's victory. There shouldn't be. While the polls showed Obama leading before the vote, the race was still close. I thought Obama would win by a small percentage; instead he lost by a small percentage. There is a ton of speculation as to "why", but two factors stood out to me. The youth voter turnout was not as high as in Iowa, renewing the question of how reliable it is. And Clinton's political machine appeared to do a very good job of getting out the vote. Obama's vote totals were close to the projections; Clinton's were much higher than forecast. Given that New Hampshire has on site voter registration, it looks to me that the Clinton team did a very good job.
Democrats should be very excited about the turnout. The Republican turnout was down, below even the turnout of 2000. The Democratic turnout set a new record.
As I've said multiple times, the compressed primary schedule makes this a long game. The pundit class hoped to choose the winner in the early innings, but that isn't happening. The winners wont be declared before super duper Tuesday, February 5th, and may not even be decided then. There is a lot of game left.
Added: A whole bunch of data here: Who supported Hillary?

Click the graphic for more data.

How much info do you need?

A Quick New Hampshire Comment

Just a quick observation; the polls were way wrong. But the numbers I'm noticing: voter turnout. Turnout for the Dems is way up. Turnout for the reptiles is down from '04, and may be lower than in 2000.

If you were taking CNN seriously, you would think New Hampshire IS the presidential election. Please tell 'ol Wolf to look on the next page of his calendar, around 2/5. Might be some more votes.

That, and Mike Gravel has 305 votes (last screen I saw), so his campaign is still alive. Uhm, party like it's 1973, Mike.

Diplomats Against Shrub

Another reason why this election is so important. Shrub has no diplomatic corps left:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Nearly half of U.S. diplomats who do not want to serve in Iraq say a key reason is because they do not support the Bush administration's policies there, according to a union survey released on Tuesday.

The survey by the American Foreign Service Association, which represents the rank-and-file diplomatic corps, not political appointees, also found that most U.S. diplomats were frustrated by what they saw as a lack of resources. Four out of 10 think Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is doing a bad job supporting them.

The electronic survey conducted at the end of last year found 68 percent of respondents opposed a decision by Rice last year to consider forcing employees to go to Iraq, where the embassy has been plagued by staff shortages.

Asked about those who would not go to Iraq because they had policy disagreements, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said people who signed up as foreign service officers were expected to support the policies of the U.S. government.

"And if people have a problem with that, they know what they can do," said McCormack, indicating disgruntled employees could quit if they were unhappy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080108/pl_nm/usa_diplomats_dc_1

I can understand why career diplomats don't want to go to Iraq, but these are the people who we most need there. The next president will have a tough task in rebuilding the core of the diplomatic corps.

A Reason for Optimism

News from New Hampshire that gives me reason for optimism:

ABC News' Karen Travers Reports: New Hampshire Deputy Secretary of State Dave Scanlan told ABC News that turnout among primary voters today is "absolutely huge" -- and there are concerns about running out of ballots in towns like Portsmouth, Keene, Hudson and Pelham.

"Turnout is absolutely huge and towns are starting to get concerned that they may not have enough ballots," Scanlan said. "We are working on those issues. Everything else seems to be going smoothly."

Scanlan said that the Secretary of State's office is sending additional ballots to Portsmouth and Keene (traditionally Democratic strongholds), Hudson (Republican leaning with significant numbers of independents) and Pelham (large number of independents).

According to Scanlan, the ballot strain seems to be on Democratic ballots, which suggests that the undeclared voters are breaking for the Democratic primary. New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner predicted that 90,000 undeclared voters would vote in the Democratic primary compared to 60,000 voting in the Republican primary.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/new-hampshire-t.html

When voters start turning out in huge numbers it's usually against the status quo. This could portend a major shift away from the republicans, and a large shift come November.

Or the republicans may turn to "ballot rationing" as their next election strategy.

Business vs. Populism

Some of the presidential candidates are running on "populism", putting people ahead of corporations. But don't worry, the corporations are ready to fight back:

WASHINGTON — Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue.

Reacting to what it sees as a potentially hostile political climate, Donohue said, the chamber will seek to punish candidates who target business interests with their rhetoric or policy proposals, including congressional and state-level candidates.

Although Donohue shied away from precise figures, he indicated that his organization would spend in excess of the approximately $60 million it spent in the last presidential cycle. That approaches the spending levels planned by the largest labor unions.

The chamber president is scheduled to announce the broad outlines of the organization's plans for the 2008 election and beyond at a news conference here today. Donohue also plans to fire a rhetorical warning shot across the bow of candidates considered unfriendly to business.

"I'm concerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media," he said. "It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, wealth and benefits -- and who it is that eats them."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chamber8jan08,1,398255,print.story?ctrack=2&cset=true

Well, at least he's honest about his plan. Remember who owns the media that will inform a lot of the voters. The corporations aren't going to give up their power without a fight, as John Edwards has said many times. Look for the phrase "anti-business" to be used in ads attacking the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is.
Government "of the people, by the people, for the people" has been perverted into government "of the rich, by the media, for the corporations."

Morning Snow

Great. We've got somewhere around 8 inches of snow this morning, with a lot more to come through the day. Normally this wouldn't be a big deal, but I have a job interview this afternoon. I'll have to make a choice between dressing "warm" or "professional." Bet on "warm."
Update: Interview cancelled. Interviewer stayed home because of snow.

Odds and Ends from a Political Saturday

I spent the day working at the county Democratic headquarters. I was scheduled to help set up a computer bank, made up of leftovers from richer counties. But we also had a voter registration table. Both were fun.
On the computer front, the state party bought us a nice, new server. They also sent a dozen old computers. Some really old. A guy named "Ian" and I got to play "make a working computer" out of these parts. "I've got a working hard drive here" and "this processor is workable" were common comments. Ian had the best line: "If we were Republicans, we'd just buy new ones", but we're not. We got 8 operational systems out of them.
On the voter registration front, I found a lot of reason to be optimistic. We registered 30 people to vote, on a snowy, cold Saturday, and 18 of those were under 30 years of age. While I've grown skeptical of the "youth vote", I'm seeing more young people getting involved.

A Picture

Still my best photo.

The Friday Boobie (but not an award)

Here's a masked boobie for Friday. I've been too distracted to make it an award yet, but I'm still planning to create one in the future.

Analyzing the First Inning

In keeping with my baseball analogy below, here are a few of my thoughts on the Iowa results.
The high Democratic turnout is a very positive sign. Compared to the relatively sluggish turnout on the Republican side, this is evidence that the motivation for change is real.
When I picked Obama to win Iowa, my hunch was that Obama would win by picking up the majority of "second choice" votes, in a "stop Clinton" move. That was wrong. Edwards got the majority of the "seconds." Which makes Obama's victory more interesting. In Iowa, at least, Obama succeeded in turning out the youth vote, something Democrats have been trying and failing to do ever since JFK. If he can continue to get the youth turnout in other states, it will have a major impact and could carry him to the nomination (emphasis on "if" and "could"). The first inning has shown us that Obama's team knows how to play the game, but scoring first doesn't guarantee victory.
Edwards had a solid showing, but was certainly hoping for better. In a long, three way race, momentum is important. For Edwards, South Carolina and the southern states on super-duper Tuesday become "make or break" time. He needs to be strong in the middle innings, or he'll be crowded out as the three-way turns into a two-way.
Clinton didn't need to win in Iowa. Like the teams of the Yankees dynasties, her political machine is built for the long season. But she did lose some of the aura of inevitability. Given her insider support, money, and name recognition, she's still the one to beat. California and New York on super-duper Tuesday will reveal whether her team is as strong as advertised.
Joe Biden and Chris Dodd have dropped out, which is sad but not surprising. With the current media circus that dominates elections, neither stood a chance of winning. Both are very qualified, but lacked the charisma that modern politics require. Image trumps substance in the era of the 30 second sound bite. Bill Richardson will hang on for a while longer, but the same dynamic will end his campaign fairly soon.
Looking forward, the question becomes "can Obama continue to motivate the youth vote?" If he can, he'll be tough to beat. If not, Edwards will benefit as the "not Hillary" candidate. And if the Democrats can continue to motivate high turnouts, it could be enough to overcome the right-wing media spin machine that has barely begun to attack. The "umpires" aren't done yet.
(BTW, can I be a pundit now?)

The Iowa Game

Dems win 3-1. I made a prediction at skippy the bush kangaroo, and it looks good.

these are the players and their top three picks:

pygalgia: obama, edwards, clinton.
reader frankdawg81: clinton, obama, edwards.
fouro: clinton, edwards, obama (and a side of onion rings).
reader kulkuri: edwards, obama, clinton.
chuck the moderate man*: clinton, obama, edwards.
frederick*: edwards, obama, clinton.
the cultureghost*: clinton, obama, edwards.
dr. dbk*: clinton, edwards, obama.
and my own picks: clinton, edwards, obama.

as for the republican side... who cares?

may the best handicapper(s) win...

I really was trying to guess the "second vote", but not bad. Current results:
Dems:

Senator Barack Obama : 36.68%
Senator John Edwards : 30.24%
Senator Hillary Clinton : 29.99%
Governor Bill Richardson : 2.01%
Senator Joe Biden : 0.94%
Uncommitted : 0.11%
Senator Chris Dodd : 0.03%
Precincts Reporting: 1487 of 1781

Damn, I might know this game.

Opening Day

Today's the official opening day of the 2008 election season, with the first game being played in Iowa. I confess to being a political junkie, and I'll be taking a hit off of the "caucus" tonight. But it really is a silly game that's being played. First, the "rules" for a caucus are completely different from the "rules" for the rest of the "season". Second, the "game" will be played in Iowa, which is really a minor league state at best. Third, the "umpires" in the media have already decided what the final score should be, and they will spin the numbers to fit their narrative.
The population of Iowa is a small percentage of the country, and only a small percentage of them go to the caucus. Then, there are the arcane rules which are different for Democrats than they are for Republicans. The Democrats have the equivalent of the "designated hitter" rule, where if your candidate does poorly, you get to substitute a more successful one.
For sheer entertainment value, you can't beat the "umpires". Those "unbiased" media pundits who will be keeping score and declaring the "winners". They've already decided who will be the "stars", and what constitutes a "good game" or "bad game" for those chosen stars. The players who are not chosen "stars" will be ignored, no matter how well they play the game.
Most of the audience will only see the box score and hear the pundits reports of who had a good game. Only the political junkies will dig deeper into the play-by-play. The pundits will do their best to claim that this is "the most meaningful game of the season", but as I wrote a few days ago in "On A Limb", I have a feeling that this season could be much longer.
It is a ridiculous system, but as a junkie, I'll say "play ball."

Sula, Sula, whoa, whoa....

....we gotta go now? (Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah)

Sorry, but the "Louie, Louie" soundtrack has played in my mind ever since I read the board at the booby park and found out the Latin name of these birds.

Of course, finding the true actual lyrics to "Louie, Louie" is about as easy as spotting a damn booby, even if you're crawling through their nesting grounds.

I recently spent a week on Little Cayman island; mostly for the undersea attractions, but when you're above-ground, on a small sliver of land, you look for other things to do. In my case, there were fabulous beaches...



an amazing tropical trail, complete with cacti in the jungle...



and wonderful sea life.



But no boobies. Well, of the flying, squawking sort.

Little Cayman has the largest known breeding colony of the Red Footed Booby (5000 pairs) in the Caribbean, a breeding colony of Magnificent Frigate Birds and several species of heron, and is the country's first RAMSAR site. The 203 acre Booby Pond Nature Reserve, is the place to visit if you're looking for these birds.


However, the frigates, the snowy egrets and the great blue heron are all more easily observed while on the island. Herons, because they are somewhat solitary and stand out, snowy egrets because they are crazy and fly all over the island, and frigates, because in their soaring they reminded me of our local California Condors in the way they rode the air currents over the ponds. But the booby? Here's probably your best glimpse, unless you spent a few days floating in the sanctuary...



Ooops! I meant this is probably your best pic


Yeah, that's they guy, in the upper right corner through the telescope. Those ruby red feet practically burn out your retinas in a view like this, don't they?

So, the expedition, if it can be called that, was less than a success, at least from the avian point of view. However, a calendar was purchased, whose proceeds will benefit the preserve, and, if I'm ever in the neighborhood again, perhaps I'll be lucky enough to spy a booby or two, close up.

Brain Function Null

Woke up with a bad head cold. Nasal discharge is not a good blog topic, and my brain refuses to focus on anything else. Where are my guest bloggers when I need them?

Starting the Year With Positive News

In a minor attempt to cast out the 'demons' of '07, I want to post something positive to start the year: The nation of Bhutan is moving to democracy without violence or outside intervention:

DEOTHANG, Bhutan (Reuters) - Bhutanese voted on Monday to elect members to a new upper house of parliament for the first time, a step towards democracy after a century of absolute monarchy.

The tiny, conservative Himalayan kingdom has been preparing for democracy since former monarch Jigme Singye Wangchuck decided to hand power to an elected government, even as many of his citizens said they were quite happy with the way things were.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSSP33906820071231

I realize that this is not going to have any major global impact, but it is unusual. I'm wracking my memory of history to think of another example of a monarch voluntarily stepping down to allow an elected government to assume power. I can't think of one, but if any historians can show me one, please do.

Another Trip Around the Sun

I like to think of birthdays as marking the completion of a trip around the sun, and the start of a new one. Today, I start a new trip.

I came to be born on New Year's Day in an unplanned fashion, and in a city almost 100 miles away from where my parents lived, on this day in 1959. Back in the '50's it was still safe to drink while pregnant (a lot of things were still safe back then), so my parents went to a friends New Year's party in Santa Rosa, CA. I wasn't due until January 10th, so Mom was rather surprised when, after her 3rd glass of champagne, she went into labor. I was born at 6:45am.

Mom likes to remind me how bad my sense of timing is. Not only did I force her to leave a really good party before midnight (something my Mom would never do by choice), and give birth in a city far from home, but if I was going to show up early, I should have at least showed up earlier. If I'd been born before midnight, my parents could have claimed me as a tax deduction for 1958. Mom still thinks I owe her the money. (yeah, mom, if your reading this, I know your kidding).

My early birth was a portent for my life. I'm the guy who is always early to everything. I wake up early, and if I'm supposed to be at work at 7:00, I'll be there at 6:30. Want to meet me for a beer at 5:00? I'll be there at 4:30, waiting for you.

So now I've completed 49 trips around the sun, and am beginning a 50th. I'd love to tell you that I'm wiser and more mature, but I'd be lying. I'd give you some resolutions, but I don't make resolutions. I do have some hopes and plans though. Along with getting a decent job, I plan to spend a goodly part of 2008 working to elect better politicians to our government. Hope springs eternal.

And more blogging. I've had this thing almost a year now, and I've grown to enjoy it. I like communicating with all you people, and I really like the sense of another community sharing ideas and ideals. Also, it's nice to have someplace to rant, vent, and bitch about the various things that are wrong with the world.

So, welcome to 2008, and another trip around the sun. Thanks for stopping by, and sharing a little part of the journey with me.

New Years

Most everybody has a favorite holiday. My personal favorite is New Years Eve into New Years Day (yes, I celebrate both as one), for a couple of reasons. First, I like the natural dividing line in the annual cycle of life. There is a sense of rebirth in starting a new year (or at least a new calendar). The hope that the next year will be better than the last. And I love the parties.

I've always considered New Year's parties to be partly personal because New Year's Day is my birthday. I'll tell the story of how I came to be born on January 1st tomorrow, but tonight is my favorite celebration. Having a New Year's birthday guarantees that there will be a party.

For many years, I celebrated at the Grateful Dead's New Year's Eve shows (14 of them), and I wish I still could. Unfortunately, Jerry Garcia doesn't play them anymore. But I have some fantastic memories and bootlegs to remind me of my younger years. Good times!

This year, my celebration will be more low key for two reasons. One, I'm broke, but two, there is a lack of music I want to hear playing tonight. Both my favorite local band are out of town. My local micro brewery has a really annoying hip-hop DJ band playing (I'm lukewarm on hip-hop to begin with, but these guys really get on my nerves), so I wont be staying out late. I'll have a few early beers and then spend the evening with friends.

So, Happy New Year, everybody! Lets hope for a better 2008, the last year of the shrub. Live, laugh, and love. Kiss anybody you reasonably can at midnight. And, above all else, don't drink and drive!

The Troubles of 2007

If this year were a fish, I'd throw it back. It's been a really rotten sort of year (as have all the shrub years), and I'm glad to see it end. Not that 2008 holds a lot of promise; the garbage of '07 is going to stink up '08.
I'm not going to attempt a "year in review", but instead look at a few of the years "events" that will haunt the new year.
Iraq, the mess that keeps on messing, is still with us. While the right wing is ending the year crowing "Iraq is getting better", the question is "better than what?". Saddam was hung, and there was a lot more crowing. And bombing. And shooting. 2.5 million people have been displaced, and roughly a million killed. True, car bombings dropped to an average of around 10 a day, compared to an average of 30 a day earlier in the year, but "less deadly" is still deadly. And more American troops died in Iraq in 2007 than in any previous year. Shrub's cheerleaders started the year with the mantra "Iraq is worse, so we must stay" and ended the year with "Iraq is better, so we must stay". My profound prediction for 2008: a lot of people are going to die in Iraq for no good reason.
Another feature of 2007 was the mass marketing of the new threat, Iran. "Iran is getting nukes", "Iran is behind the violence in Iraq", and "Iran's president wants to destroy Israel" were all parts of the media narrative. Never mind the facts, just know that Iran is really, really bad. By the end of the year, we learned that Iran has no nuke program. Iran's involvement in Iraq is fairly complex, but the reality is they're next door neighbors, the Prime Minister of Iraq has close ties with Iran, and the Iranians really want a stable Iraq on their border. But you'll never hear that from the American media. Most Americans don't have a clue about life in Iran. A few months ago, when the "Iranian threat" rhetoric was at its highest, I was in a discussion with some folks about Iran. None knew what language was spoken in Iran. All were amazed that there was the internet in Iran. One person told me "they all live in tents in the desert" and "their all primitives". He was truly amazed when I showed him pictures of Tehran and a wide variety of Iranian web sites. Most Americans would be surprised to learn that there are Christians and Jews in the Iranian parliament (and my Christmas Eve post of Christmas in Iran blew a few right wing minds). On a positive note, the rhetoric on Iran has toned down as the year comes to an end. For 2008, I don't think that America will attack Iran. This isn't because shrub and the Cheney don't want to, but because both Russia and China have quietly offered to aid Iran, and America can't afford to cross Russia and China.
2007 saw the return from hiatus of Osama bin Laden, and his tapes continue to be international hits (to shrubs credibility). Conspiracy theories abound, but the simple fact that he still exists proves that shrubs "war on terror" is a lie. He's winning his war.
On a related note, Afghanistan is still a disaster and Pakistan is deteriorating into chaos. In Afghanistan, our man Hamid Karzai is barely the mayor of Kabul while the rest of the country is under the control of warlords and opium cartels. America failed to learn the lessons from the Soviet occupation, and without a major change of plan will continue to slowly bleed away. Far more troubling for the long term is the chaos in Pakistan. The big news was the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a courageous but flawed women who America hoped would be our savior. But Pakistan has been a powder keg awaiting a spark. When Pervez Musharraf cracked down on judges and lawyers, the fuse was lit. Pakistan is a complex country, with an industrial based middle class, lawless mountain regions controlled by warlords, a Taliban Islamic fundamentalist faction, and real, live nuclear weapons. The military and the ISI may currently be under Musharraf's tentative control, but that could change in a heartbeat. Because Pakistan is an "ally in the war on terror", we've given them billions of dollars in military aid, which they promptly pointed at India. Oh, and they may have Osama (I'm not 100% convinced; there are reasons to suspect he may have moved to Tajikistan). No prediction here, but watch Pakistan closely; this could end up the worst failure of shrub's international fiasco's.
On the domestic front, 2007 will be the year where the American economy became untenable. The news focused on the sub-prime mortgage debacle, but the roots of the problem are much deeper. Years of deficit spending by the government and the populace have been propped up by falsely inflating the value of the dollar beyond its intrinsic worth. Throw in rising oil prices and corrupt corporate practices, a lack of investment in infrastructure, and an increased dependence on foreign investment, and a lot of very big chickens are coming home to roost. Prediction: we're in for a very bad year. The only question is how bad.
2007 also began with the new hope of a Democratic led congress. That hope faded quickly, as a combination of Republican obstructionism and Democratic capitulation resulted in a continuation of "business as usual". While a few positive steps were attempted, not much was accomplished.
But in my mind, one bad thing in 2007 eclipsed them all. In 2007, America tacitly embraced torture. Shrub destroyed our international moral standing in one move. For the first time in my lifetime, America no longer strived to be "the shining beacon on the hill". While it's true that "American exceptianalism" was more of an ideal than a reality (we're far from perfect), every prior administration could exercise the moral authority to stand up to atrocities in the world. By admitting that America will engage in torture, shrub has debased everything that America used to stand for. I'm not sure that I can find the words to express my outrage, but it breaks my heart every time I think "we used to be better than this. We tried to be the good guys". I will never forgive shrub for destroying the American ideal.
Well, that's a depressing end of the year note. I'll try to make my next post more positive, with hope for the New Year.
Added: I wrote this before I read todays New York Times. Lead editorial:

"There are too many moments these days when we cannot recognize our country."
The New York Times lead editorial today echoes what millions of Americans must be
feeling as this awful year comes to a close. It was a year of self recognition, when Americans finally realized America can no longer pretend to be a moral beacon. It is a sickening discovery.

I guess I'm not the only one.

On A Limb

With the Iowa caucus coming this week, all the political pundits are busy explaining "if X wins, Y is out" and pointing to various past elections as examples of why their "wisdom" is so "wise". There are a brazillion different polls the pundits point to, to "prove" that their "wisdom" is truly "wise."
I think they're wrong.
This election cycle has a very different dynamic that the traditional blowhards appear to be ignoring: the schedule.
In previous election cycles, the primaries and caucuses stretch out over months, and early momentum was the deciding factor. But the schedule has changed, with 20 primaries on February 5th. This creates a very different dynamic, where any lead from Iowa or New Hampshire can be overcome (this is true for both parties). The "main" candidates merely need to survive the early states with a semblence of credibility to focus on the larger states of their choice on "mega-super-Tuesday", where the nominations are truly at stake. Money will certainly be a factor, but the application choices of that money could be a deciding factor. The candidates who do the best job of targeting their strong states could end up in the lead.
I'm not going to attempt to predict who the new dynamic favors, but I'm tired of the beltway pundits trying to declare the winner after the first inning (or quarter, depending on your choice of sports metaphor). Looking at all the polls, what stands out to me is not who leads which poll, but that in each party no candidate has a clear lead. Which means that a majority of voters in each party will be making a second choice as the field narrows. That is where it will get interesting. The delegate split after Feb. 5th will either reveal a clear nominee for each party, or if it's still close a scramble during the later primaries.
As I said, I'm not going to predict who this favors. But I will predict that the vast majority of beltway pundits will be proven wrong. Not that they'll admit it.

Added: Andy Borowitz has written the best line I've read on Iowa:

With less than a week to go before the Iowa caucuses, 61% of likely voters agreed with the statement, “If one more stupid pollster asks me one more retarded question I swear I will go postal on his ass, I am not kidding.”

http://www.borowitzreport.com/

Word.