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...