Reserves are Broken

We are safer this I know, for Dear Leader tells us so.

The Army Reserve, a force of some 200,000 part-time soldiers who provide key support in Iraq and Afghanistan with medics, engineers and truck drivers, "is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken' force," its top general has told senior Army leaders.

Lt. Gen. James R. "Ron" Helmly, the chief of the Army Reserve, in a blunt and detailed memo, cited the demands of overseas commitments and the unwillingness of Army and Pentagon officials to change "dysfunctional" policies that are hampering the Army Reserve on issues ranging from training and extension of service time to the mobilization of his soldiers.

The Dec. 20 memo, obtained by The Sun, said that in meeting "current demands" of Iraq and Afghanistan, the Reserve is in "grave danger" of being unable to meet other missions in Pentagon contingency plans or help with domestic emergencies "and is rapidly degenerating into a 'broken force.'"

"The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you of the Army Reserve's inability to meet mission requirements" in Iraq and Afghanistan "and to reset and regenerate its forces for follow-on and future missions," Helmly wrote in the eight-page memo sent through Army channels for the Army's chief of staff, Gen. Peter J. Schoomaker. "I do not wish to sound alarmist. I do wish to send a clear, distinctive signal of deepening concern."

Interviewed yesterday at the Pentagon, Helmly said, "I stand by the memorandum. Is there frustration? Absolutely. Is the frustration beyond control? No."

...

A senior Army official, who requested anonymity, said yesterday that unexpected troop requirements in Iraq led to the problems outlined by Helmly. The active duty forces needed there continually rose over the past year, requiring an increased number of Reserve soldiers to provide support. The official said some policies would have to change.

The 150,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq include about 30,000 Army Reserve soldiers serving in Iraq and Kuwait.

Well, there's always the Prostitutes that Neil Recommended

Jebby, not such a big deal in South East Asia.

"Who are you?" asked one slightly bemused Australian consular official as the large-girthed US stranger pumped his hand.

"I'm Jeb Bush."

"Oh, are you a relative of the president?" said the interlocuter, jokingly.

"Yes I am. I am his little brother."

"Oh," came the reply. "Good for you."

Not shown, the eye-rolling following the last statement.

End of the Overhype?

Well my friends, in some karmic twist of fate, Ashlee Simpson's "performance" was booed at the Orange Bowl Tuesday evening.

Booed? You say David E. DeDurkheim the people don't boo prefabricated and prepackaged music, they buy it and slurp it down like it tastes good. But last night we were all surprised because some people said "no, this tastes like shit."

So, I am shocked, happily shocked. I would have bet my last nickel that those college football fans were too ambrosied on Coors, Bud, and Michelob to respond in a real way (if not in a nice manner) to one of the awful major record labels supposed 'artist' of da moment!

But they were supposed to clap and cheer and walk lock step into the mediocrity that is most of major label pop music! But when Ashlee finished her horrific performance Tuesday evening, everybody BOOED! Not subtly, not by a tinsy bit but clearly, unmistakably, audibly! If you were watching television or listening to the radio or a stream of the broadcast, you heard it. I heard it.

And for one small, short moment... I was at peace. And I was at peace, because I wondered, does this mark the end of the Overhyped "artist?" (apologies to artists with talent) Could music lovers be taking something real back? Granted this was a large overhyped college football game with all the trappings of a major league football game and they only play the best music at these events (ok, no slowly, carefully take the tongue out of cheek).

But if even these folks can say, "wow, that music sucked and I bet she didn't even really sing," then maybe, just maybe there is hope for all of us to help provide a platform for all of the great struggling bands and musicians out there. They are there, playing the small bar or pub down the street and you should go listen to them and give them a few bucks. Why? Because they are real. They write their own songs. They sing their own songs. They feel the music, they embrace it warts and all. So, for a while at least let's support real music.

And we can start by booing Ashlee Simpson.

The War at Home

Atrios writes tonight about the truly awful statements today by Bill Frist (phony-baloney milquetoast, gap-collared, pasted-on hairstyle, same-tie wearing, Mister Rodgers-like soft-spoken Southern-gent speech pattern) which suggest that Frist believes that his (their) goal of domination is within reach.



Can you trust this man?

Let's not underestimate the meaning of the words quoted by Atrios (not to mention the hypocrisy found in his actions in fillibustering Clinton's nominee to the 9th Circuit, Judge Paez). He means exactly what he says.

So what should be our response? FUCK YOU. Seriously, if they are going to bring on the nuclear option, let 'em. They don't have to compromise, they don't want to compromise, they don't intend to compromise. All they intend to do is enact every major anti-citizen/anti-consumer/anti-civil-rights/anti-individual liberty/anti-government/anti-New Deal reform they can. Every chance they have to favor the wealthy over the poor, the healthy over the sick, the corporation over the individual, law enforcement over civil rights, they will do so. It is nothing short of war right here at home. Let's be ready for this fight.

So for all the Senators who stop in from time-to-time to have some practice, when you see these assholes, just a little subtle one for those of whose health would improve drastically with the opportunity to do it, try this:



Now I feel better. Goodnight.

Like Rats Off A Sinking Ship

Is there really any doubt that we are pushing the elections forward so we can call it a win and just get the fuck out? Imagine the turmoil we will leave behind. And woe be the poor soldiers left behind should Dear Leader "decide" to stay in that powder keg.









What a disaster.

Insurgency is on the March

Holden at First Draft (regularly quoted in the Daou Report unlike Attaturk, Ed: Shut up you ninny you were quoted about 10 days ago -- fucking glory hound) has this information on one thing that is growing faster than the armadillo in Dubya's flightsuit. Surprise, it's not freedom, it's the insurgency!

IRAQ’S rapidly swelling insurgency numbers 200,000 fighters and active supporters and outnumbers the United States-led coalition forces, the head of the country’s intelligence service said yesterday.

The number is far higher than the US military has so far admitted and paints a much grimmer picture of the challenge facing the Iraqi authorities and their British and American backers as elections loom in four weeks.

“I think the resistance is bigger than the US military in Iraq. I think the resistance is more than 200,000 people,” General Muhammad Abdullah Shahwani, director of Iraq’s new intelligence services, said.

...

General Shahwani said that there were at least 40,000 hardcore fighters attacking US and Iraqi troops, with the bulk made up of part-time guerrillas and volunteers providing logistical support, information, shelter and money.

“People are fed up after two years without improvement,” he said. “People are fed up with no security, no electricity, people feel they have to do something. The army (dissolved by the American occupation authority) was hundreds of thousands. You’d expect some veterans would join with their relatives, each one has sons and brothers.”

Family Values

Steve M. at the excellent No More Mr. Nice Blog points out something Attaturk missed in the NY Times (probably because Elizabeth Bulimia, er, I mean Bumiller wrote it). Nice reflection of the empty rhetoric of the fundy jihad that has become the right wing:

Kelsey Grammer will be the M.C. at a kickoff inaugural gala honoring the military, the rap artist Kid Rock will perform at an inaugural youth concert ...

--Elisabeth Bumiller in today's New York Times

Yes, I'm repeating myself, but I want to point out once again that Grammer has had multiple arrests for drunk driving and cocaine possession, has been accused of statutory rape by the parents of a babysitter, and once might have dressed in drag while having sex with a porn actress (none of which has quelled speculation that he might someday run for Senate as a Republican). And Kid Rock's song catalogue includes such morally inspiring ballads as "Fuck U Blind," "Killin' Brain Cells," "3 Sheets to the Wind (What's My Name)," and "Early Mornin' Stoned Pimp."

"I understand most American families do not look to Hollywood as a source of values."

--George W. Bush, campaign speech, October 27, 2004

The Dialectic of Disasters

The recent tsunami disaster provides the bases for a good deal of reflection on the world stage and an opportunity to highlight new and old lessons and their use in fighting savage inequality for those who still dabble in the land of caring for other people.

First, with an event of the magnitude of this seismic event, we need to know what were, if any, the responses of the intelligence and defense agencies. Were they aware? If so, when? And what did they do with the information? Or was this simply a matter of interest to geologists holed up in various laboratories? But what did the so-called defense community with all of their equipment know about this disaster?

Second, what was the character and nature of information of the disaster made available to various national governmental and non-governmental organizations and leaders (including the UN) and what were the time-lines between preliminary notification and response? How did we think about this disaster? What were the time-lines of response to subsequent reports of damage? This goes beyond what did W know and when did he realize he had to act (as well as acting in a manner that was not insulting).

Third, are the different rates of donations by nations to this event following past patterns? Are the big donors the regular big donors? Or are we seeing a different pattern of giving here?

Fourth, will the communications opening as exhibited in blogging turn out to be an effective mechanism for clearing away certain myths about the disaster or this part of the world? or will it clear only some myths that serve the purpose of a barely legitimated Bush administration? In other words, how long before we see pictures of the smiling, grateful and not the suffering?

Even know all the commentators talk about this historic opportunity for Bush to change the image of the United States rather than people were harmed and need our help.

Fifth, what will be the balance of virulent neoconservative politics concerning regimes and indigenous politics? How will those who do not care much for that part of the world (I wonder if the Vulcans or New Century people care at all) balance the scale of concern with winning the hearts and minds of Muslims vs. expressions of personal sentiments to collect and distribute material goods and services and provide opportunities to those harmed in this tragedy?

Some hard old lessons for us to consider:

Like the sinking of the Titanic and numerous natural disasters (unlike 9-11), the victims tend to be disproportionately the economically disadvantaged. Monitoring the facts of this disaster have been distorted into a social observers' equivalence to bean-counting: How many dead today? How many projected death? How many will die of disease?

Matters relating to values and humanitarianism seem to pale when business elements are assessed against human misery. Yet, we must not wallow in the scale or misery, we must act to ensure that something like this does not happen again.

The nature and extent of sentiment that swirls about individuals after this tragedy will very likely overshadow other lessons that we should consider. Meanwhile, the the disparity between human experiences and corporate operations (How soon before Haliburton becomes involved in emergency response here?) provides an opening to move the world toward human needs rather than that of Bidness. Let's hope we take that opportunity.

The Circle of Right

Post is a little long...sorry.

As stated on this blog before:

American Politics as reflected by current and future reality from places like Rush Limbaugh's drug intake system and the intersection of Banality Street & Insanity Avenue:

Step One: Dear Leader asserts we must take military action against a country because it is a danger.

Cliff May type:

"If we don't act, the next thing you know Saddam will be coming at us across Discount Gardener Land or Discount Pharmaceutical Land"

OR even better, trot out Dear Leader to say:

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Step Two:

Proclaim that those who say that this proposal is not a good idea and based upon faulty intelligence or outright oppose it as being "traitors" or "unpatriotic".


Step Three:

Invade third world country with depleted military with world's most powerful military using air, sea, and ground forces. Express amazement that such a military could so thoroughly manage to defeat an amazingly impotent opponent. Reaffirm those criticized in step two and rub their noses in your hubris.

Let me say I'm disturbed by some of what Kamiya confesses, but extremely heartened by his honesty. It seems to me that a real anti-war liberal, with a heart and a head, is bound to feel deeply conflicted by all this. Contrast Kamiya with the apparatchik Krugman this morning and you see the difference between someone trying to figure this all out and someone who thinks he figured everything out years ago. (And notice Krugman's use of the term 'conquest' rather than liberation. Telling, don't you think?)

Oh, what was Krugman criticized for saying on April 11, 2003? Why this:

Credit where credit is due: the hawks were right to say that a whiff of precision-guided grapeshot would lead to the collapse of Saddam Hussein's regime. But even skeptics about this war expected a military victory. ("Of course we'll win on the battlefield, probably with ease" was the opening line of my start-of-the-war column.) Instead, we worried — and continue to worry — about what would follow. As another skeptic, Michael Kinsley of Slate, wrote yesterday: "I do hope to be proven wrong. But it hasn't happened yet."

Why worry? I won't pretend to have any insights into what is going on in the minds of the Iraqi people. But there is a pattern to the Bush administration's way of doing business that does not bode well for the future — a pattern of conquest followed by malign neglect.

One has to admit that the Bush people are very good at conquest, military and political. They focus all their attention on an issue; they pull out all the stops; they don't worry about breaking the rules. This technique brought them victory in the Florida recount battle, the passage of the 2001 tax cut, the fall of Kabul, victory in the midterm elections, and the fall of Baghdad.

But after the triumph, when it comes time to take care of what they've won, their attention wanders, and things go to pot.

Anybody wonder if Sully has ever said, gee Krugman was right?

Why wonder. He hasn't.


Step Four:

Watch things go to shite, deny they are going to shite. For example, noted genius Donald Rumsfeld on June 17, 2003.

"In those regions where pockets of dead-enders are trying to reconstitute, Gen. (Tommy) Franks and his team are rooting them out," Rumsfeld said, referring to the U.S. commander in Iraq. "In short, the coalition is making good progress."

Step Five:

Things keep getting shitty, but surely event X will cause things to turn shite into roses.

Even the NYT had to give some credit to the Bush-Blair leadership that got us here. Add in the capture of Saddam - and the comparative calm in Iraq since - and we may have reached a mile-stone in the war on terror. It's a good moment to re-state that much criticism of the Bush-Blair policy has distorted it.

Step Six:

Well, okay there's a lot of shit and it's really bad, but still it's better!

"One thing is for certain: There won't be any more mass graves and torture rooms and rape rooms."—Bush, press availability in Monterrey, Mexico, Jan. 12, 2004

Ignore the fact that since that statement, there have been:

Mass Graves:
Handy-dandy Fallujah Memorial Soccer Field, circa April 2004.

Torture Rooms:

Rape Rooms:

"The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. The worst about all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror it's going to come out... a massive amount of criminal wrongdoing was covered up at the highest command out there, and higher."

-- Seymour Hersh


Step Seven: Find that the LAST reed upon which your policy hangs is going to shit. See today's headlines. Or this:

"The first democratic elections were held in Iraq on January 29, 2005 under the ever-watchful collective eye of the occupation forces, headed by the United States of America. Troops in tanks watched as swarms of warm, fuzzy Iraqis headed for the ballot boxes to select one of the American-approved candidates..."

It won't look good.

There are several problems. The first is the fact that, technically, we don't know the candidates. We know the principal heads of the lists but we don't know who exactly will be running. It really is confusing. They aren't making the lists public because they are afraid the candidates will be assassinated.

Another problem is the selling of ballots. We're getting our ballots through the people who give out the food rations in the varying areas. The whole family is registered with this person(s) and the ages of the varying family members are known. Many, many, many people are not going to vote. Some of those people are selling their voting cards for up to $400. The word on the street is that these ballots are being bought by people coming in from Iran. They will purchase the ballots, make false IDs (which is ridiculously easy these days) and vote for SCIRI or Daawa candidates. Sunnis are receiving their ballots although they don't intend to vote, just so that they won't be sold.

Yet another issue is the fact that on all the voting cards, the gender of the voter, regardless of sex, is labeled "male". Now, call me insane, but I found this slightly disturbing. Why was that done? Was it some sort of a mistake? Why is the sex on the card anyway? What difference does it make? There are some theories about this. Some are saying that many of the more religiously inclined families won't want their womenfolk voting so it might be permissible for the head of the family to take the women's ID and her ballot and do the voting for her. Another theory is that this 'mistake' will make things easier for people making fake IDs to vote in place of females.

All of this has given the coming elections a sort of sinister cloak. There is too much mystery involved and too little transparency. It is more than a little bit worrisome.

American politicians seem to be very confident that Iraq is going to come out of these elections with a secular government. How is that going to happen when many Shia Iraqis are being driven to vote with various fatwas from Sistani and gang? Sistani and some others of Iranian inclination came out with fatwas claiming that non-voters will burn in the hottest fires of the underworld for an eternity if they don't vote (I'm wondering- was this a fatwa borrowed from right-wing Bushies during the American elections?). So someone fuelled with a scorching fatwa like that one- how will they vote? Secular? Yeah, right.

And NOW, the Future:

Step Eight:

Declare the reason that things did not go as planned was all the liberals fault for not being on board immediately and not clapping louder.

In other words, the Right's foreign policy can be summed up as the "tinkerbell defense", because YOU did not believe, it is all your fault.

They are getting ready early on.

Remember this later this month...

Freedom Marchers (at the quintuple quick)

Our Manly Man of Firm Resolve, of clenched jaw and constant blinking is playing to his one and only trick...being a Manly Man of Firm Resolve, of clenched jaw and constant blinking.

"Clearly the thinking on this is still in motion in Baghdad," a senior administration official said Monday evening. "And President Bush is holding firm," the official said, telling Dr. Allawi that the Iraqi government has met every deadline so far, including assuming power from the United States in June.

Mr. Bush has publicly insisted that the elections must go forward on Jan. 30, as scheduled, and said any delay would mean giving in to the insurgents who have vowed to stop the elections from taking place.

Hey, I used a quote twice today. I'm like on a talking point or something.

Anyhoo, when it becomes apparent the elections will or should have been delayed this is your best evidence.

Frankly, at this point it probably doesn't matter.

Gee Golly

Andrew Sullivan...what can you say to this?

QUOTE FOR THE DAY I: "I'd much rather be doing this than figthing a war," - helicopter pilot Lt. Cmdr. William Whitsitt, helping the survivors of the south Asian tsunami. Earth to Whitsitt: you're a soldier.

Soldiers are apparently supposed to favor war over being a human being.

Pretty much sums up why Sully remains a conservative doesn't it?

Earth to Sully: Shut the fuck up!

Here's a quote from a Republican and Conservative...perhaps you've heard of him?


"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can,
only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity"

Never Bring a Bobo to a Brain Fight

David Brooks and Paul Krugman both write about Social Security. One man is a pablum issuing, template using, thumb-sucker...one is a Professor of Economics and potential Nobel Prize winner in that field.

It goes about how you would expect.

Bobo:

Which brings us to the current moment. In Europe, everybody is aware of the problem, but the remedies are so bad that most countries avoid them. Meanwhile, we in the United States are embarking on our own debate over the future of Social Security. Many liberals are claiming that we don't need to fundamentally revamp our system because there is no crisis. To the extent that's true, it is because we have not been taking their advice for the past 50 years.

...uh-huh, like we didn't listen to liberals over those Bush tax cuts and Iraq, and, of course, about seventy years ago we listened to those damned liberals when we created the most successful program in the nation's history too!

Meanwhile, after nanny has spoken, it's time for the Professor to chime in...

Krugman:

The people who hustled America into a tax cut to eliminate an imaginary budget surplus and a war to eliminate imaginary weapons are now trying another bum's rush. If they succeed, we will do nothing about the real fiscal threat and will instead dismantle Social Security, a program that is in much better financial shape than the rest of the federal government.

In the next few weeks, I'll explain why privatization will fatally undermine Social Security, and suggest steps to strengthen the program. I'll also talk about the much more urgent fiscal problems the administration hopes you won't notice while it scares you about Social Security.

Today let's focus on one piece of those scare tactics: the claim that Social Security faces an imminent crisis.

That claim is simply false. Yet much of the press has reported the falsehood as a fact. For example, The Washington Post recently described 2018, when benefit payments are projected to exceed payroll tax revenues, as a "day of reckoning."

Here's the truth: by law, Social Security has a budget independent of the rest of the U.S. government. That budget is currently running a surplus, thanks to an increase in the payroll tax two decades ago. As a result, Social Security has a large and growing trust fund.

When benefit payments start to exceed payroll tax revenues, Social Security will be able to draw on that trust fund. And the trust fund will last for a long time: until 2042, says the Social Security Administration; until 2052, says the Congressional Budget Office; quite possibly forever, say many economists, who point out that these projections assume that the economy will grow much more slowly in the future than it has in the past.

So where's the imminent crisis? Privatizers say the trust fund doesn't count because it's invested in U.S. government bonds, which are "meaningless i.o.u.'s." Readers who want a long-form debunking of this sophistry can read my recent article in the online journal The Economists' Voice (www.bepress.com/ev).

Brooks is now intellectually on the floor holding his nuts (does he have those?)

Freedom is on the...oh shit!

More miracles from the cradle of Chimpalization.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Jan. 4 - A bomb-laden fuel truck killed eight Iraqi commandos and two other people when it crashed into a checkpoint in western Baghdad about 9 a.m. Tuesday, according to an interior ministry official. Sixty others were wounded in the attack, which happened near the scene of two of the deadly car bombings Monday.

Insurgents also assassinated the governor of Baghdad Tuesday morning, killing Ali al-Haidari after he left his home, the interior ministry said. The Associated Press reported that six of the governor's bodyguards were also killed.

Hours after a wave of bombing attacks that left at least 20 people dead on Monday, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi telephoned President Bush and discussed the many impediments still facing the country as it heads toward elections in 27 days, according to senior American officials familiar with the contents of the call.

The officials insisted that Dr. Allawi, Iraq's interim leader, did not tell Mr. Bush that the elections should be delayed, though his defense minister said in Cairo on Monday that the voting could be postponed to ensure greater participation by Sunnis. "There was no substantive conversation about delay," a senior administration official said. Dr. Allawi, the official said, "wasn't even a bit wobbly" on that point.

But some officials in Washington and in Iraq interpreted the telephone call as a sign that Dr. Allawi, who is clearly concerned his own party could be headed to defeat if the election is held on schedule, may be preparing the ground to make the case for delay to Mr. Bush.

Remember, everytime a bomb goes off in Baghdad, a Neocon gets his pitchfork.

Not One Damn Dime

Not One Damn Dime Day--Jan 20

"You may never know the result that comes from your actions, but if you do nothing, there will be no result" -- Mahatma Gandhi

Not One Damn Dime Day - Jan 20, 2005
Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending. During "Not One! Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for nothing for 24 hours.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Wal-Mart, Kmart, Target... Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter). For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down.

The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan - a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed. For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give
America back to the people.

Please share this message with as many people as possible and remember... NOT ONE DIME!!

Nigel Tufnel, Anyone?

Here is a classic: 2 judges on a 3 judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (which is comprised of the westernmost states including California, Oregon, and Washington, and known by most people that follow trends among the federal circuits as the most liberal of all the circuits) ruled that it is not discrimination to force women to pretty themselves up by applying makeup as a condition of employment.

In an opinion likely to raise the ire of civil rights and feminist groups, a divided 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled Tuesday that a woman who was fired from her job as a casino bartender for refusing to wear makeup cannot sue for sex discrimination.

The 2-1 decision rejected bartender Darlene Jespersen's argument that Harrah's Operating Co. violated her rights when it implemented "Personal Best" image standards requiring women to wear makeup and men to trim their fingernails and keep their hair short.

"Even if we were to take judicial notice of the fact that the application of makeup requires some expenditure of time and money, Jespersen would still have the burden of producing some evidence that the burdens associated with the makeup requirement are greater than the burdens the 'Personal Best' policy imposes on male bartenders," Senior Judge A. Wallace Tashima wrote for the majority.

Judge Barry Silverman concurred.

2 troglodytes and 1 who "gets it":

Judge Sidney Thomas dissented, saying that a jury easily could have found that the makeup requirement illegally requires female employees to conform to sex stereotypes, or that it places more of a burden on women than Harrah's male grooming standards.

"Sex-differentiated appearance standards stemming from stereotypes that women are unfit for work, fulfill a different role in the workplace, or are incapable of exercising professional judgment systematically impose a burden on women, converting such stereotypes into stubborn reality," Thomas wrote.

What's the big deal? A little eye shadow, a little color to the cheeks, it's all good, right? Wrong. How about being judged on performance?

Jespersen worked as a sports bartender at Harrah's in Reno, Nev., for nearly two decades and received exemplary performance evaluations. Harrah's encouraged female beverage servers to wear makeup, but it was not required.

Jespersen briefly tried wearing makeup but later stopped because she felt it "forced her to be feminine" and to become "dolled up" like a sex object.

Anyobody see "This is spinal Tap?" It reminds me of the great line by the not-so- swift Nigel Tufnel (played by Christopher Guest): "What's wrong with being sexy?"
Sexist Nigel, sexist.

Press Release from the Maglagaladangchittychittybangbang Compound

In a gesture of goodwill, Michelle has offered to keep a close eye on the interred remains of the late Representative Robert Matsui to make sure they don't start any trouble. Cannot never be too careful after all.

Meanwhile in Reality

Thanks to Eric Alterman for alerting me to this, from the Nation.

Listening to the cable pundits, you would never suspect that there is no proof at this point that Annan, or indeed anyone else at the UN, did anything wrong. Charges of corruption against UN official Benon Sevan are suspect at best, given that they come via Ahmad Chalabi, who was also the source of the discredited information about Iraq's illusory weapons, as well as the assurances that Iraqis would greet US and British forces as liberators. Nor is there any evidence that Annan used his influence to give Cotecna, a company that employed his son, the job of monitoring contracts under the oil-for-food program, and no proof that Cotecna did anything illegal or corrupt. Although Annan's son certainly let his father down by not telling him of Cotecna's continuing "non-compete" payments to him, paternal resignations in response to the sins of prodigal sons have not been a great American tradition--certainly not under the Bush dynasty.

There are real questions about Saddam Hussein's oil sales, both inside and outside the oil-for-food program, but all the serious investigations, such as that by the US Government Accountability Office, make it clear that most of the revenue he raised had nothing to do with the UN, and that the UN did nothing without the explicit or implicit support of the United States acting through the Security Council.

The reality is that the current calls for Annan's head are provoked by his opposition to America's pre-emptive war in Iraq. On December 4 the Minneapolis Star Tribune, the hometown newspaper of Senator Norm Coleman, who has called for Annan's resignation, provided perhaps the most succinct explanation of what lies behind the attacks. Describing Coleman's call as a "sordid move," the editorial explained: "For months before the election, the right-wing constellation of blogs and talk radio was alive with incendiary rhetoric about Annan and the oil-for-food scandal.... This is really all about Annan's refusal to toe the Bush line on Iraq and the administration's generally unilateral approach to foreign affairs. The right-wingers hate Annan and saw in the food-for-oil program a possible chink in his armor. They went after it with a venomous fury."

The right-wing, led by Safire and a variety of other shills will do whatever they can to try to undermine the UN -- a bogeyman of the right-wing since its founding. This manufactured scandal is nothing new, but part of a long sordid tradition.

Meanwhile, about those billions that have gone missing in Iraq from the reconstruction budget...

Shall We Support State Sponsored Homicide

Lately I've been writing a bit on why judicial appointments are important if not wildly misunderstood by most people. Why misunderstood? Well you have the ignorance factor for one. But even if you factor that out most people just have a problem applying abstract notions of fairness, privacy, constitutional rights in general. And when it comes to the death penalty it is even more difficult for most people to understand the problems with the death penalty. So when you add to the ignorance factor the idea that we are trying to protect the rights of covicted killers, kidnappers, rapists, etc., people wonder why we should worry about that person's rights?

Unfortunately, those of us that believe the death penalty is morally wrong have lost that battle and, in my humble opinion, I do not believe that it is an issue we can ever get back. So given the chance to talk about it with people that think they understand, several years ago I just shifted the debate: are you willing to kill innocent people?

George W. Bush always took solace in the fact during his watch in Texas no innocent people were sent to meet their maker. Apparently beyond reasonable doubt means metaphysical certainty to George Bush. But what brings this issue front and center today? An article in yesterday's NYT about a federal judge who had found a novel way to challenge the death penalty on constitutional grounds. The judge found that innocent people who had been put to death would lose their ability to challenge their conviction and therefore were denied due process of law.

In an opinion in April 2002, Judge Rakoff sought to take a first step toward ending the death penalty.

"We now know, in a way almost unthinkable even a decade ago," he wrote, "that our system of criminal justice, for all its protections, is sufficiently fallible."
The decision gave brief if unexpected joy to the two defendants. It drew a sharp attack from prosecutors, who called it erroneous and over-reaching; it set off debate - including scathing editorials - about judicial activism run amok; and, perhaps not surprisingly, it won some praise from defense lawyers specializing in capital cases, who kicked themselves a little for not having made such an argument before.

"I gave a speech to numerous death penalty lawyers from around the country and said, 'Why are we asleep at the wheel?' " recalled Kevin McNally, a lawyer in the case before Judge Rakoff.

The mix of joy and outrage, though, did not last. A federal appeals court overturned the ruling, although, as it turned out, the drug dealers on trial before Judge Rakoff were ultimately sentenced by a jury to life in prison without parole.
***
"I've never thought that the death penalty was one of those issues that was open and shut for either side," he said.

He had concluded that a state legislature or Congress should have the right to decide if the punishment was acceptable. His was a "utilitarian kind of approach," he said, "having nothing to do with retribution or anything like that." His view, he said, was, "I'll do whatever the law tells me to do."

But in recent years, he became troubled by the implications of the increasing number of exonerations of those sentenced to death, many of them through DNA evidence.

Here, of course, I diagree with him on the issue of whether society should decide whether execution is an appropriate response to certain crimes. But I digress.

By summer 2001, even before the lawyers in his case filed legal papers challenging the death penalty, Judge Rakoff had begun his own basic research.

He focused on a controversial 1993 decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that Leonel Herrera, a Texas death-row inmate who had exhausted his appeals in a murder case, was not entitled to a new federal hearing based on a belated claim that he was "actually innocent."

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, in the court's majority opinion, made it clear that Mr. Herrera did not appear to be innocent. The opinion left open the possibility that "a truly persuasive demonstration of 'actual innocence' " would render an execution unconstitutional, but it made the point for the sake of argument, without conclusively deciding it.

The opinion also said that such inmates were not without recourse, as they could always seek executive clemency.

In an angry dissent, Justice Harry A. Blackmun charged that the majority was virtually endorsing the death penalty for innocent people. "The execution of a person who can show that he is innocent comes perilously close to simple murder," he wrote.
***
In October 2001, the judge raised his concerns in court. Given the number of DNA exonerations in cases of wrongful convictions, he asked the lawyers whether a penalty could be constitutional if it "precludes forever" rectifying such a wrong for an innocent inmate on death row.

It was different, he said, four or five years earlier, when such mistakes seemed like "a fairly remote hypothetical."

"Now it would appear that it's neither a hypothetical nor so remote," he said.
The judge, meanwhile, pursued his research. He wanted to determine as precisely as possible how many death row prisoners had been found to be "factually innocent," as he put it in the interviews. If it were just 1 out of 100, he said, he would be less troubled.

"You can't design a system that's perfect," he said, "and due process is, by definition, what is reasonably due, not what is perfect."

He reviewed a list of exoneration cases on the Web site of the Death Penalty Information Center, a research group that says it is critical of how the death penalty is carried out. His law clerks, too, went to work. He ultimately came up with 32 cases of exonerated prisoners who, he concluded, were "factually innocent" - 12 were cleared through DNA testing and 20 through other means.

Such exonerations exposed "something pretty upsetting, if you think about its broader ramifications," the judge said in court in March 2002. "It is that our legal system is not as good in ascertaining the truth as we thought it was."

I gotta tell you, if you are the 1 in 100 who doesn't get exonerated I'll bet you wouldn't believe you had gotten all the process due you. But I digress again, and note, for the record, nobody's perfect.

In April, he took the unusual step of releasing a preliminary opinion that found the death penalty unconstitutional, but invited prosecutors to make further arguments before he rendered a final decision. If the government sanctioned executions, he wrote, knowing that the probable result would be "the state-sponsored death of a meaningful number of innocent people," did that not deprive those people of the due process the Constitution promised them?

Throughout the legal debate, Judge Rakoff maintained a silence about his own family tragedy, but that ended one day in June 2002 as he prepared to sentence a co-defendant of the two men, Janet Soto, to 20 years in prison. She had pleaded guilty to conspiracy.

In court, the prosecutor, David B. Anders, introduced Minerva Rodriguez, the victim's mother, who made an angry, almost scathing, attack on Ms. Soto. "You have no idea the pain and agony you have caused me," the mother began. "You took away my firstborn son."

After her emotional statement, Judge Rakoff, obviously moved, offered a surprising response.

"Let me say," he began, "that I understand more fully than you might realize the pain you feel."

Then, he revealed something he had always treated as a private matter, not liking to talk about it.

"Twenty years ago," he told the victim's mother, "my older brother was murdered in cold blood."

In 1985, his brother, Jan, then 44, had been killed in the Philippines - beaten to death with a piece of metal and an ice pick.

The judge said in the recent interviews that he still felt the loss deeply; that the anguish never left. "It's an unhealable wound," he said.

His brother, a graduate of the University of Chicago, was a brilliant teacher and an educational innovator who had started a school in Vermont, the judge said.

It took almost a year to make an arrest. A signed confession was lost. The murderer wound up serving a short prison term, the judge says, which convinced him that the attacker had benefited from a corrupt judicial process in Manila.

Judge Rakoff said that he never lost the sense of vulnerability that any victim feels, like the mother who had lashed out in the courtroom.

"I felt justice was not done in the case of my brother," he said, "and clearly this woman lived in fear that justice was not being done in the case of her son. I understood that completely."

He said that he did not think his brother's attacker should have been executed, but that he would have been satisfied with life imprisonment.

"The victim wants to have some reassurance that there is cosmic justice, so to speak, that things like this are recompensed," he said.

During the jury selection for the death penalty trial last June, Judge Rakoff appeared torn - questioning, even criticizing, the process while making clear that he would follow the law.

That became evident during his inquiry of one prospective juror. The juror said that although she had once been pro-death penalty, believing it was a deterrent, she had since changed her views. One factor, she explained, had been her work in prison ministries, where she had heard eloquent testimonies from inmates who had "done very bad things."

"I know too many converted prisoners," she said, adding, "I don't want to be in a place of God."

Under the law, prospective jurors who take what appears to be an absolutist position against or for capital punishment are not supposed to sit on a jury.

But after excusing the woman, Judge Rakoff told the lawyers, "I think the Supreme Court has got this whole process completely wrong." He called the woman thoughtful and conscientious, and said that in any other criminal case, she and others like her - who could favor the death penalty - were the kind of people who should be on a jury. "They come together, they reason together, they often change their mind or modify their views," he said. "They take very seriously, in my experience, the court's instructions, put aside their views and decide a case on the law."

So here's to Judge Rakoff, a judge who did the right thing. Maybe not surprisingly the judge was appointed by Clinton. In honor of a judge who took a strong and daring stand I will post his picture. (I also apologize for the length of the post).

Takes one to know one I guess

One of the more obnoxious posters at the intersection of Nabob Street & Bad Touch Avenue is not so noted homophobe John Derbyshire. In a feat of "delicious" irony the world's most latent gay man states:

FRUIT CAKE [John Derbyshire]
Note received with an ABSOLUTELY DELICIOUS fruit cake from a kind reader:

"At long last, the fruit cake I had promised. I apologize that I didn't get it to you in time for Christmas. I hope you enjoy it and, if you do, all I ask in return is a Corner post for my Mom praising her fruit cake. Her name is Raquel Moore-Green and she lives in Salem, Oregon. The fruit cake is highly coveted by fruit cake lovers in and close to my family and is the source of many 'fruit cake conversations.'"

I am happy to confirm that Mrs. Moore-Green's fruit cake is truly bodacious and altogether superlative. Many thanks to her son for taking the trouble to send it to me.
Posted at 06:45 PM

Insert your own jokes in comments if you wish.

Over the Hill Shill, Larry King Impersonation Edition

The only good thing about William Safire's swan song, is that it is supposed to be his swan song. His deterioration into shilling for whatever the Chimperor wants is sickening.

His "interview" with Sharon appears to be nothing less than Larry King with less information available to him (which doesn't seem humanly possible).

At the end I'm guessing that he and Sharon got together for some grilled brats.

R.I.P.

Two Democratic Party figures in two days. One active, one no longer, but still influential.

Robert Matsui died of a strange ailment yesterday which made him susceptible to pnemonia. He was a steady opponent of Social Security privatization, and someone with first-hand experience of those internment camps the Maglalingadingdongs and Daniel Pipes of the world are so enamoured with. He was 63.

Shirley Chisolm also died yesterday, the first African-American woman elected to Congress. She served seven terms, ran for President in 1972 and won over a 150 delegates, and she never stopped advocating and agitating for the less fortunate -- nowadays she'd be called "un-American". But, in truth, she was as great a patriot as any. She was 80.

Your Republican Bench in Action...

Richard Posner, Seventh Circuit Appeals Judge and hero to Conservatives everywhere asks you this question...

"So you want to give up your civil liberties voluntarily, or wait to have them taken away?"

I just think that almost all Americans would consider that turning back the civil liberties clock to, say, 1960 would be worthwhile if as a result some horrendous terrorist attack was prevented. I am of the same mind. I find it hard to understand the contrary position, but I would not argue against it. I would point out, however, the self-defeating character of civil liberties absolutism. If as a result of such absolutism another major terorrist attacks occurs, civil liberties are pretty sure to go out the window.

I would also argue against those who say that history shows that the threat of terrorism is much less than other threats that we have overcome. That is a misuse of history. History does not contain nuclear bombs the size of oranges, genetically engineered smallpox virus that is vaccine-proof, and an Islamist terrorist (Bin Laden) who visited a cleric in Saudi Arabia to obtain--successfully--the cleric's approval to wage nuclear war against the West.

I'm sorry, but what the hell do these various assertions mean? History also doesn't reflect a lot of President's flying to Aircraft Carriers with an armadillo in their flightsuit either. Nuclear bombs the size of oranges? I thought they were not even briefcase sized yet? What a tautological bunch of supposition and hooey!

What is the "arbitrary" benefit of civil liberties as they existed in 1960?

A lot of us who give a damn about privacy would argue that "1960's" Civil Liberties would be more expansive than they are now. The only real distinction between the arbitrary year 1960 and later years is that things like the 1964 Civil Rights Act and 1965 Voting Rights Act were passed. After 1960 is also comes "Monroe v. Pape" and "Miranda" and other cases that expounded upon the meaning of the 14th Amendment and prohibited governmental abuses.

Uh-Oh, did we stumble on to something that shows the world Judge Posner would like?

Posner's little statement also takes on a more sinister meaning if one consideration such recent stories as torture abuses in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo; Al "Nipple Clamps" Gonzales attempts to justify torture; and the newly released idea out of the Bush Administration that we should just permanently lock up those heathens we have in our custody for no other reason than "they are muslim".

Pardon me, if I think in these cases "Civil Liberties" becomes a morality versus immorality question. It is clearly not one that has as its necessary predicate that if we act like we are a decent and civil society on occasion we are going to be killed by terrorists.

To the Mattresses

Digby says we should go to metaphorical war over the nomination of "Hot Candlewax" Al Gonzales.

To which I say.

AMEN!

Make the GOP and the Bush Administration explain in detail their tolerance of the use of torture, which has become better documented all the time. If the Democratic Party is portrayed as "soft on torture" so be it, I'd rather be that than the velvet fascists that set out policies making beating to death and water boarding possible.

It is time to fight, and fight hard.

Chimp Math

We all know the Preznit was a lousy student, right? Now we know he condones cheating. Seems the administration plans to use a little fuzzy math both in the budgeting porocess and in accounting for Social Security privatization.

The Social Security sleight of hand isn't really news, but check out how dishonest these people are.

To make Mr. Bush's goal easier to reach, administration officials have decided to measure their progress against a $521 billion deficit they predicted last February rather than last year's actual shortfall of $413 billion.

By starting with the outdated projection, Mr. Bush can say he has already reduced the shortfall by about $100 billion and claim victory if the deficit falls to just $260 billion.

But White House budget planners are not stopping there. Administration officials are also invoking optimistic assumptions about rising tax revenue while excluding costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as trillions of dollars in costs that lie just outside Mr. Bush's five-year budget window.

This is impressive, use numbers they now know were wrong in the first place to show, lo and behold, the plan is working.

The five-year plan, due in February, is likely to reaffirm previous predictions of a $217 billion surge in tax revenues in 2005, the biggest one-year jump on record, and almost $800 billion a year by 2009.

"We still believe we will see new economic growth, with revenues increasing as a share of G.D.P.," said Chad Kolton, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget, referring to the gross domestic product. "I think our numbers are very realistic because they are consistent with the best estimates of Wall Street and of the Congressional Budget Office."

As in past years, the budget will exclude costs for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which could reach $100 billion in 2005 and are likely to remain high for years to come. The budget is also expected to exclude Mr. Bush's goal to replace Social Security in part with a system of private savings accounts, even though administration officials concede that such a plan could require the government to borrow $2 trillion over the next decade or two.

The hundreds of billions we're spending on our colonial interests in Afghanistan and Iraq don't count either. That $2 trillion is for liabilities related to Medicare, the AMT, and the cost of making permanent the Bush tax cuts.

Many analysts are dubious about the long-term plan. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that deficits will remain well above $300 billion if Mr. Bush's tax cuts are made permanent and if Iraq war costs taper off gradually. On Wall Street, analysts at Goldman Sachs predict that budget deficits will total about $5 trillion over the next 10 years.

"I've been watching this more than 30 years, and I have never seen anything quite this egregious," said Stanley Collender, a longtime author on budget issues and a senior vice president at Financial Dynamics, a communications firm in Washington.

"They are cutting the deficit from a number they never believed in the beginning," Mr. Collender said, referring to the decision to measure progress against the unrealized $521 billion deficit projection. "What if they had forecast that the deficit would be $800 billion last year? Would they take credit for having cut it by half?"

Dubious indeed. Where are the adults? Whither will the budget hawks land on this one?

In the Shadow of Concentration Camps

As reported today in the New York Times, The Bushies are not wanting to release any SUSPECTED terrorists into the future.

Administration officials are preparing long-range plans for indefinitely imprisoning suspected terrorists whom they do not want to set free or turn over to courts in the United States or other countries, according to intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials.

Gee, I wonder why we would not want to try a suspect in court to determine whether or not they committed a crime? There are counts like conspiracy if someone is involved in an effort to coordinate a criminal enterprise... like terrorism. But, of course, we must all remember that suspicion in the Bush era equals guilt. I wonder if we need to educate them about words, meaning, and action?

The Pentagon and the CIA have asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for potentially lifetime detentions, including for hundreds of people now in military and CIA custody whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts. The outcome of the review, which also involves the State Department, would also affect those expected to be captured in the course of future counterterrorism operations.

So, let me see. We are going to let people know that if they get captured we will incarcerate them for life? I wonder what that will do for motivation or far more importantly what that will do to our image abroad? America the Prison Nation!

"We've been operating in the moment because that's what has been required," said a senior administration official involved in the discussions, who said the current detention system has strained relations between the United States and other countries. "Now we can take a breath. We have the ability and need to look at long-term solutions."

So, I wonder what kind of long term solutions they are considering? Life imprisonment for suspected terrorist activity? Life imprisonment for criticism of Bush? After all, hasn't the nut-wing worked really hard to equate criticism of Bush and his horrible policies with anti-American crimes?

How this will be looked overseas is far more critical. Locking people away because we think that they might be terrorists -- and I acknowledge that there might be some terrorists who are behing held -- but we need to know for sure and this is not the way to do that! Is that what we want to be known for? Would that not be similar to constructing concentration camps?

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, according to defense officials.

So let's make sure I have this right... the Bush administration cannot try you in a court, even a MILITARY COURT, so we will hold SUSPECTED terrorists (do we need to explain the word 'suspected?' It means we do not know for sure)in perpetual prison! Democracy indeed.

Wow, where do they go from here?

Lil' Russ's Republican Sideshow

It isn't Dr. Phil but it is an embarassment nevertheless. While there isn't a transcript yet of today's program, you won't need one as I will summarize it for you here.

First guest: Colin Powell.

Lil' Russ: Was the President's response to the disaster in Asia quick enough and sufficient?

Powell: These things have a lifespan, the President was involved from the first moment, blah, blah, blah. Our response has been overwhelming and will continue to grow, blah, blah, blah. The American people are generous, blah, blah, blah.

Lil' Russ: Should we have followed the Powell doctrine in Iraq?

Powell: We had sufficient troop strength, blah, blah, blah. The Iraqi people want to vote, blah, blah, blah. Tim, please remove your hand from my thigh.

Second segment: Circle Jerk with, get this, William Safire, Kate O'Beirne, Evan Thomas, and David Broder.

Lil' Russ first runs video montage from the '04 election which can best be summed up as a video montage written and directed to make John Kerry look bad ("I actually voted for the $87b before I voted against it) and Bush, well it hardly showed him. One video excerpt: "I know it was Osama bin Laden..."

Lil' Russ to panelists: When was this election won?

Panelists: In the first 10 days after 9/11, when the country needed a President to rally around, and the country never forgot.

Other comments of the Republican "journalists" club: Bush...political capital...conservative judges...social security...political capital...

Really, if this is the best Lil' Russ can do in balancing the panel he should just give up. Why waste time putting two mealy-mouthed journalists scared of their own shadows and unwilling to ever be critical of the Administration in the ring with two wild-eyed Republican apologists who also happen to be mouthpieces for the administration? Really, Safire and O'Beirne breathe fire while anyone else he puts on the panel simply tries to walk a line right down the middle.

You expect it from Safire and O'Beirne as they are self-proclaimed knuckle-draggers. What has become apparent about most of the others that frequent his program, including himself, is that they all sleep together too often, eat together too often, and vacation together too often. The mainstream media should stop wondering why the rise of the blogosphere.

Half Loaves

The New York Times today takes note of the sleazy dealings of lobbyists closest to Dale Gribble, I mean Tom DeLay. At the same time, they ignore the "elephant" in the room.

One of the sorriest chapters of American history, the gulling of native Indian tribes, is continuing apace in Washington, where two Capitol insiders close to the House majority leader, Tom DeLay, are being investigated for allegedly fleecing six tribes of more than $80 million with inflated promises of V.I.P. access. The shameful dealings of Jack Abramoff, a Republican power lobbyist, and Michael Scanlon, Mr. DeLay's former spokesman, are coming to light as Senate and Justice Department investigators follow leads from nouveau-riche tribes whose casino profits spurred a new category of lucre and greed in the hyperkinetic world of Washington lobbying.

Even as the two fast-talking political brokers banked large profits for three years of minimal labor, it was found, they were exchanging gleeful private messages mocking tribal leaders as "morons," "troglodytes" and "monkeys." "I want all their MONEY!!!" Mr. Scanlon exuberantly e-mailed in the midst of one deal.

The outrageous affair includes evidence that the two sought to manipulate tribal elections to ensure their lobbying boondoggles, while dropping the names of Mr. DeLay and other leaders and urging tribal contributions to Republican political funds. In the latest high-roller abuses laid bare by The Washington Post, Mr. Abramoff was found to have prodded the tribes to pay for his luxury skyboxes at Washington sports arenas - yes, even at the home of the football Redskins - so he could impress Capitol politicians, staff members and fund-raisers with swank perches to push causes unrelated to tribal issues. A colleague pronounced Mr. Abramoff a master of schmooze, but sleaze seems a far better word.

While the Senate Indian Affairs Committee is continuing its inquiry, the Republican House leadership remains mute. The gulling of the casino tribes is a blot on Congress and the lobbying industry that cries out for a thorough public vetting. But no one is taking any bets, particularly at tribal casinos, that Capitol politicians can fully face the task.

Ironically, not pointed out by the Times' Editorial is that the while this sleazy business is coming to light, the GOP House Leadership and its members are doing their best to make the ethics investigations of DeLay meaningless or more appropriately non-existent.

You'd think Pravda on the Hudson might want to point that one out -- but that would require work.

Putting Out the Beacon on the Hill

In a decision, I'm sure that Daniel Pipes of Michelle Magalang would approve of, the Bush Administration has decided to do away with morality and the spirit of the American Constitution and decide that the way to protect the United States is to be the biggest pricks possible.

The slippery slope has become a cliff.

US Said to Mull Lifetime Terror-Suspect Detentions

The Bush administration is preparing plans for possible lifetime detention of suspected terrorists, including hundreds whom the government does not have enough evidence to charge in courts, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
Citing intelligence, defense and diplomatic officials, the newspaper said the Pentagon and the CIA had asked the White House to decide on a more permanent approach for those it would not set free or turn over to courts at home or abroad.

As part of a solution, the Defense Department, which holds 500 prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, plans to ask the U.S. Congress for $25 million to build a 200-bed prison to hold detainees who are unlikely to ever go through a military tribunal for lack of evidence, defense officials told the newspaper.

The new prison, dubbed Camp 6, would allow inmates more comfort and freedom than they have now, and would be designed for prisoners the government believes have no more intelligence to share, The Post said.

"It would be modeled on a U.S. prison and would allow socializing among inmates," the paper said.

"Since global war on terror is a long-term effort, it makes sense for us to be looking at solutions for long-term problems," Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, was quoted as saying. "This has been evolutionary, but we are at a point in time where we have to say, 'How do you deal with them in the long term?"'

So, apparently someone (I'm guessing Douglas Feith) read Heinlein.

Freedom is on the march.*




*Freedom not available in some countries, those of darker complexions or non-English speaking, non-Christian or Jewish Countries, will have a more limited form available. Freedom may produce side effects such as drowziness, or lethargy, see your local Republican Party Organizer for details.

Today's Theme: New Year's Recipes

The Middling Triumvirate present, in a series of posts that follow, a culinary tribute to our times as we begin the New Year.

Begin theme...

How Dare the Rest of the World Challenge Chimpy's Manhood

Off-topic once more, with a nod to reader Demosthenes, here is proof that in order to get the You-nita States of 'Murica to do anything is to challenge the manhood of the Chimp.

President Bush (news - web sites), under pressure over the pace and scale of American aid to Asian tsunami victims, abruptly raised the U.S. contribution to $350 million on Friday, 10 times the amount pledged just two days ago.

The president said the dramatic increase in assistance, which eclipsed a $250 million aid pledge from the World Bank (news - web sites), was based on the initial findings of U.S. assessment teams in hard-hit areas of southeastern and central Asia, and on recommendations from senior officials including Powell.

What a putz.

Religious Nut-Wing to go on Attack Part III

Please forgive the deviation from Today's theme, but I simply could not wait to share this with all of you.

And just when you thought that it could not get any worse. Along comes these unbelievable comments. From the people who have taught us the meaning of the words tasteless and meanspiritedness with a generous helping of hostility if you think and believe differently than they do.

Raw Story has discovered that some on the religious nut-wing blame the Tsunami on the Tsunami victims!

From their own website 1

From their own website 2

It's almost enough to want a new inquisition... almost.

Religious Nut-wing to go on Attack Part II

I know that I am deviating from the Recipe rule for today, but this is pretty darn important.

We are in the middle of an all or nothing cultural war. Consider this: Has Pat 'Bucky' Buchanon and his ilk already won?

Religious far right leader threatens to attack democrats over judicial nominees. Alright, no more Mr. Nice Blog Boy... it is finally time to talk about taking away tax exempt status from religious groups who are going to act as though they were PACs and Lobbying groups! Jeebus, save us from your confused and angry followers!

This could be the most important issue of 2005. Groups, churches, and other efforts on the far religious right now believe they are set to force their agendas upon the rest of us. Call your legislators, give money to good progressive causes, speak up when people make religious and political assumptions, organize, organize, organize.

Important to read in its entirety:

COLORADO SPRINGS - James C. Dobson, the nation's most influential
evangelical leader, is threatening to put six potentially vulnerable
Democratic senators "in the 'bull's-eye' " if they block conservative
appointments to the Supreme Court.

In a letter his aides say is being sent to more than one million of his
supporters, Dr. Dobson, the child psychologist and founder of the
evangelical organization Focus on the Family, promises "a battle of enormous
proportions from sea to shining sea" if President Bush fails to appoint
"strict constructionist" jurists or if Democrats filibuster to block
conservative nominees.

Dr. Dobson recalled the conservative efforts that helped in the November
defeat of Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the Senate minority leader
who led Democrats in using the filibuster to block 10 of Mr. Bush's judicial
nominees.

"Let his colleagues beware," Dr. Dobson warned, "especially those
representing 'red' states. Many of them will be in the 'bull's-eye' the next
time they seek re-election."

He singled out Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Mark Dayton of Minnesota, Robert C.
Byrd of West Virginia, Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Jeff Bingaman of New
Mexico and Bill Nelson of Florida. All six are up for re-election in 2006.

James Manley, a spokesman for Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the new
Democratic leader, said Democrats had allowed 204 judicial appointments to
move forward in Mr. Bush's first term.

"James Dobson needs to take a moment to focus on the facts," Mr. Manley
said. He called Dr. Dobson a "front for the White House."

Ralph G. Neas, president of the liberal group People for the American Way,
which has often opposed conservative court nominees, said, "Mr. Dobson's
arrogance knows no limits." He added: "This is the kind of tactic that
ultimately backfires. These senators have served their constituents well and
have courageously voted their consciences. I don't think they will take
kindly to threats from Mr. Dobson, and I don't think the voters will
either."

Dr. Dobson's activities represent a new level of direct partisan engagement
on his part. Unlike other conservative Christian leaders, Dr. Dobson owes
his grass-roots following primarily to his partly clinical, partly biblical
advice on matters like marriage and child-rearing. Before supporting Mr.
Bush, he had never endorsed a presidential candidate.

In the aftermath of the election, some of Dr. Dobson's allies are warning
their fellow evangelicals not to be seduced by political deal-making. In "an
open letter to the Christian church" last month, Charles W. Colson, the
born-again Nixon aide and another influential Christian conservative, warned
against listing demands of the president or other elected officials.

"To think that way demeans the Christian movement," Mr. Colson wrote with
his associate Mark Earley. "We are not anybody's special interest group."

In an interview in his office in Colorado Springs, Dr. Dobson acknowledged
that his plunge into partisan politics had irrevocably changed his public
image. "I can't go back, nor do I want to," he said. "I will probably
endorse more candidates. This is a new day. I just feel a real need to make
use of this visibility."

He said that despite initial concerns, his political activities did not
appear to have diverted donations from Focus on the Family. He created a
sister lobbying organization during the last election, and the two
organizations' combined budgets grew to a projected $146 million in 2004,
from about $130 million in 2003, with a target of $170 million for 2005.

Dr. Dobson said he was prepared for some disappointments from Mr. Bush. For
example, he said, when the president says the country is not ready to
overturn the Supreme Court precedents supporting abortion rights, "it
bothers me a lot." But Dr. Dobson said he was confident that the president
would appoint socially conservative nominees for the courts.

He said of Mr. Bush, "He does not take the bully pulpit and use it
effectively." He added, "But when the chips are down, he does the right
thing."

Dr. Dobson said he was concentrating his political activities mainly on the
court. "The next battle will be over the replacement for Rehnquist," he
said, referring to Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, who is being treated
for thyroid cancer. "That is not something we can just yawn about."

He said he was hoping that Mr. Daschle's defeat would scare other Democrats.
Dr. Dobson said he had been working for Mr. Daschle's defeat since August
2003, when he attended a rally to support Roy S. Moore, then chief justice
of the Alabama Supreme Court, in his unsuccessful legal battle to keep a
monument to the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. The crowd's reaction
demonstrated the depth of popular resentment of liberal court decisions, Dr.
Dobson said.

Spokesmen for all but one of the senators Dr. Dobson mentioned declined to
comment or did not return phone calls.

David DiMartino, a spokesman for Mr. Nelson of Nebraska, said the senator
was already an opponent of abortion rights and had never supported a
filibuster of one of Mr. Bush's appellate nominees.

"Dr. Dobson knows that," Mr. DiMartino said. "The senator and Dr. Dobson
have discussed it before. The fact that the media has the letter before the
targeted senators indicates his intention has more to do with the media than
with persuading anybody in the Senate."

Agreement on hypocrisy

BuzzFlash GOP Hypocrite of 2004: George W. Bush

We agree, wholeheartedly, without reservation, no problems, absolutely, A-Ok, cool, totally agree, we have the same opinion, we concur, we are in complete agreement, we see eye to eye on this, clearly we are of the same mind, of the same opinion, we do not differ at all.



Oh, yeah... Chips of Hypocrisy.
Ingredients:
1 Bag of Chips
Unlimited heapings of Righteous Indignation

Directions:
Open bag and pour contents into bowl. Talk to anyone who will listen how Bush has (a) ruined this country, (b) ruined the pronunciation of America, (c) just where was he when he was supposed to be "flyin' Jets," (d) why did Bush lose his standing to fly? (e) social security is actually doing pretty well right now... so do you think there will be a lying media campaign to convince us of Bush's lies? (f) failed to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq ... Or all of the above.

Grandma Bush's Humble Pie

"Mummy, mummy, we want some pie for dessert. We would ever so much like some pie mummy", the Bush clan from Kennebunkport, via Midland, used to sing at their matron.

She'll serve up a heapin' helpin' for you and your kinfolk. Goodness knows she has tamed the patron of the family and has raised several down-to-earth children. How have all these fine, upstanding citizens achieved that state of transcendence? Well we at Rising Hegemon were able to tear a bit out of the Bush manual on raising a family and what did we find? One recipe for Babs's own humble pie. Served up as cold and bitter as can be.

Babs puts on quite an air of regular galishness even though she is a colossal bitch. Trust us, you wouldn't want to have to spend two minutes with her unless you had to. So what is the secret of the family success? Well here, for your dining pleasure, is just a taste of what the Bush boys, George, Neil, Jeb amd the rest of them had to choke down. No wonder they are such accomplished assholes, their mummy didn't go the extra mile at dessert time.

Crust:

According to Babs, you always start with the crust. She likes hers dense, "not like pastry chefs make." If the servants aren't around to go to the store to pick up a ready made pie crust, get a box of Bisquick then mix the following:

* 1 cup Bisquick
* 1/4 cup butter, room temperature
* 2 tablespoons boiling water

Stir vigorously until combined, freeze for a while then bake like 10 minutes. You've got a workable crust. It tastes a little like papier-mache but it is all the Bush kids got.

Then to to the cupboard and find some old canned cherry filling (the one that has been in there for a few years), open can, dump into crust. Stick finger in to see if sweet enough, or if the kids need to learn a lesson, whether it needs a little lemon juice (heh heh heh).

Put the concostion in the oven for 10 minutes or so at 400 degrees. Take out. Chill. Serve with all the indifference you can muster.

Does the portrait remind anyone of Karen Hughes?

Junior's Blood Puddin'

Regular readers of this blog may wonder why a guy who so studiously avoided combat duty when he had the chance is such a war monger now. We have found one of the answers.

Blood Puddin'

Mummy and Puppy have a special treat for little boys that don't eat every scrap on the plate that Senora Maria made for dinner tonight.

3/4 or more quarts fresh hog blood
1.5 lbs. raisinf, for that nice texture
1 c. sugar (less for more discipline)
1 lb. nuts, preferably the kind kids don't like to eat
2 orange rinds
1 tsp. black pepper
1 tsp. red pepper
2 tsp. salt

1 recalcitrant kid who won't tell other kids where he has hidden the toys and who puts in the corner occasionally holding his breath.

Mix. Bake 1 hour at 350 degrees.

Best served to recalcitrant son to teach lesson after tantrum (or as real stinky fish bait).

Rapture Cookies

INGREDIENTS:
1 cup butter, softened
1 cup white sugar
2 eggs
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1 teaspoon of jewish extract, or add to distaste
3 3/4 cups all-purpose flour
1/8 pound of chopped, but handled snake
2 teaspoons baking powder
1 chapter revelations
1/4 cup heavy whipping cream
1/2 cup colored sugar for decoration


----------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS:
In a conservatively festive looking medium bowl, stir together the butter and sugar. Pray. Stir in the eggs and vanilla. Sift together the flour and baking powder, stir into the creamed mixture alternately with the heavy cream. Pray. Cover dough, and chill for 2 to 3 hours, until firm. May place close to womb to decrease necessary chilling time.

Preheat oven to 911 degrees F (488.33333333333337 degrees C, but we do not believe in that commie stuff). Add book, preferably one written by Charles Darwin. Annoint cookie sheet with crisco like you're John Ashcroft being appointed lord high texecutioner.

On a lightly floured surface, roll out the dough to 1/4 inch thickness. Cut into desired shapes with cookie cutters (we suggest, Jesus, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Laura Bush, Ariel Sharon (with double sized recipe only) or the tortured image of damned Andrew Sullivan, available at www.raptureiscomingsoonyouheathenfornicators.com). Pray.

Place cookies 1 inch apart on the prepared cookie sheets. Sprinkle with colored sugar reflecting the hellfire of the condemned if desired. Pray.

Bake for 5 to 8 minutes in the preheated oven, or until who the heck knows when, but at least wait until the bottoms and edges of cookies are light brown. Remove from baking sheet and cool on wire racks. Speak in Tongues. Flinglish fanem coobler a doggle rah, visule pracasset neigh! Pray.

Condemn to hell and torment all who sneak a cookie before they have adequately cooled, or the democratic secular humanist of your choice. Store in an airtight container. Pray. Decorate with festive stoning rock display, again available at www.raptureiscomingsoonyouheathenfornicators.com).

Pray.

Eggs Attaturk

INGREDIENTS:
4 egg yolks
3 1/2 tablespoons lemon juice
1 pinch ground white pepper
1/8 teaspoon Worcestershire sauce
1 tablespoon water
1 cup butter, melted
1/4 teaspoon salt
8 eggs
1 teaspoon distilled white vinegar
8 strips Canadian-style bacon
4 English muffins, split
2 tablespoons butter, softened
1 Cup Sarcasm
1/4 ounce of bitters

--------------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS:
To Make Hollandaise: Fill the bottom of a double boiler part-way with water. Make sure that water does not touch the top pan. Bring water to a gentle simmer. In the top of the double boiler, whisk together egg yolks, lemon juice, white pepper, Worcestershire sauce, and 1 tablespoon water. Scream about how unfair it is that you are not blogrolled by Atrios...but you are not bitter. Blame your co-bloggers without reason.

Add the melted butter to egg yolk mixture 1 or 2 tablespoons at a time while whisking yolks constantly. If hollandaise begins to get too thick, add a teaspoon or two of hot water. Continue whisking until all butter is incorporated. Whisk in salt, then remove from heat. Place a lid on pan to keep sauce warm. Bitch about how Peggy Noonan and David Brooks get paid six-figures, yet you cannot even figure out how to get a paypal account up on your blog so you can maybe haul in five to ten bucks a month.

Preheat oven on broiler setting, do not stick head in. To Poach Eggs: Fill a large saucepan with 3 inches of water, think you can handle that moron? Bring water to a gentle simmer, then add vinegar. Carefully break eggs into simmering water, and allow to cook for 2 1/2 to 3 minutes. Yolks should still be soft in center. Remove eggs from water with a slotted spoon and set on a warm plate. Decry the fact that there are not enough pictures to caption for an extended period of time, tell yourself to get over it and get down to serious business of reviewing the internet pornography. Pray that Steve Gilliard does not think this is a slam on him, because it isn't (Ed: like he reads your blog you Putz). Get in argument with made up Editor as comedic proxy. Wonder if people are actually reading the directions sections and finding out this is actually a satire. Remove pants just for fun.

While eggs are poaching, brown the bacon in a medium skillet over medium-high heat and toast the English muffins on a baking sheet under the broiler. Deny Armenian Genocide and create secular military backed quasi-democracy. Oops, sorry, that is "Eggs Ataturk". Spread toasted muffins with softened butter, and top each one with a slice of bacon, followed by one poached egg. Place 2 muffins on each plate and drizzle with hollandaise sauce. Go to Atrios' comments section and blogwhore about this bitchin' recipe you are putting together, find another couple of posts and repeat. Refresh site until he puts up a new post, think of something witty so your whoring is less obnoxious, make sure you blogwhore in the comments early in the thread to up your traffic. Take empty satisfaction that more hits make you a better person -- try to get by on that one for the rest of the day. Breathe in the fresh air that is bogarting off anothers popularity. Feels good doesn't it?

Tell Benedict to get the fuck out, and put the special love that is Attaturk in.

Sprinkle with chopped chives and serve immediately, before one of the other two knocks all your posts down lower on the blog and nobody sees them anymore.

Doug Feith's Special DOD Commissioned Muslim Surprise

In a gesture of tolerance and kinship with our muslim friends, the Department of Defense requested that Douglas Feith create a recipe sure to get a positive reception from those who want to know the care and depth of cultural sensitivity the Bush Administration has for you, fellow people of faith.

DOUG FEITH'S MUSLIM SURPRISE


First, invite over a half-dozen or so muslim scholars and influential leaders who do not detest American Foreign Policy...okay settle for four, three if you don't count Iyad Alawi.

Remember not to invite Chalabi.

INGREDIENTS:
3/4 cup water
1/3 cup lemon juice
1/3 cup chopped onion
1 tablespoon packed brown sugar
1 tablespoon chopped green onion
1 tablespoon crude oil
3/4 teaspoon salt
3/4 teaspoon ground allspice
3/4 teaspoon ground cinnamon
1/2 cup of ground mustard gas
3/4 teaspoon ground black pepper
1/2 teaspoon dried thyme, crushed
1/2 cup spirit crushed
1/4 cup of cherries, picked
1/4 teaspoon cayenne pepper, or to taste
6 lean pork chops, 1/2 inch thick

-------------------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS:
Combine water, lemon juice, onion, brown sugar, green onions, oil, salt, allspice, cinnamon, black pepper, thyme, and cayenne pepper and rest of ingredients in a blender or food processor, in a pinch use a centrifuge. Blend until smooth. Reserve 1/2 cup for basting. Go to mosque to pray, keep your shoes on, take your porno mags with you.

Place pork chops in extra shallow glass dish. Pour remaining marinade and international goodwill over the meat. Cover, and refrigerate at least 12 hours, but no longer than 24 hours. Ah hell, you work for the Bush Administration, that sucker doesn't need more than an hour or two before you invade the fridge and pull it out.

Preheat grill for medium heat. Place grate 4 to 5 inches above heat source.
Oil the grill grate, grate as much as possible, in fact be extra grating. Arrange chops on grate, and discard marinade as well as contradictory intelligence. Cover grill, and cook chops for 10 minutes, turning once, or to desired doneness, if not properly done, just say "close enough" and claim that to say otherwise is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Serve chops with car magnet "support the troops" red, white & blue garnish, beam proudly, report back to President, get Medal of Freedom and hefty book contract. Drop jaw in confused indignation if guests act all huffy, insulted and islamofascist.

Soup of Despair

Also known as the Soup of the Damned


INGREDIENTS:
1/2 pound ground beef (alternate use 1/2 pound ground gruel)
2 teaspoons chopped onions (if you are not crying, keep chopping)
6 2/3 cups chicken broth of Doom
1 (28 ounce) can crushed tomatoes
1 1/2 teaspoons ground cumin
1/2 clove garlic, minced (use other 1/2 on main entry doors)
1/4 teaspoon cayenne pepper
1/4 teaspoon chili powder
salt and pepper until tongue is numb
3 tablespoons cornstarch
1 cup cold water from fountain of ignorant republican youth
2 (15 ounce) cans creamed corn
1 1/2 cups shredded American cheese
5 (6 inch) corn tortillas, cut into 1/2 inch strips
2 pounds of fresh snark (old snark will not do!!)
1 teaspoon of soul crushing electoral loss
4-5 bottles of Vodka
2 liters of 7Up (no sierra mist or sprite!!)
2 gallons of orange juice
1 container lemon juice
ice
-----------------------------------------------------

DIRECTIONS:
Please note that these directions must be followed to the letter to gain the most enjoyable culinary experience. Deviations will only hurt.

After reading the Rising Hegemon blog and no other. Do not mess up this step. It is very important that you read no other blog, website, chat, or email. Other sites will contaminate the cooking vibrations and ruin the soup of despair.

Begin combining 1/2 cup of vodka to 1/4 cup orange juice and 1/2 cup of 7Up, 1/6 cup lemon juice. Pour into glass with ice. Start drinking.

In a large skillet over medium high heat, combine the ground beef (or gruel) and onions and saute for 5 minutes, or until beef is browned. While mixture cooks chuckle over how funny Atta J. Turk is... hee hee, what a corker! Drain excess fat and set meat aside. (do not smirk over tasteless joke) Take another drink.

In a large pot over high heat, combine the broth, tomatoes, cumin, truth of the righteous, and garlic. Add the cayenne pepper, chili powder and salt and pepper to taste. Bring to a boil and reduce heat to medium low. Then reflect on how much joy and quality analysis those blog boys at RH have brought to your life this year.
Take a drink, make another and finish it.

In a small bowl, combine the cornstarch with the water, stirring well until the cornstarch is dissolved. Add slowly to the soup, stirring constantly, to thicken. Down your fourth drink. Begin talking to yourself about how the republicans stole the election.
(note: The more animated and angry you get, the more drinks you should complete)

Add the reserved meat, corn and cheese to the soup and stir well. Finally, add the tortilla strips and allow to heat through. Finish whatever number drink you are on.

Serve and think about how to get that terrific blog RH more links and recognition. When finished, wash bowl and write a quick email to all your family, friends, people at the office, folks you knew in high school who can read, strangers you share mass transit with and tell them they should be reading the Rising Hegemon. Finish another drink.

Oh yeah, and tell them about the yummy soup of despair too. And if you feel the urge, hug someone and tell them that you love them with as sloppy or slurry a manner as is possible.

Oh, one more thing, have as happy a new year as is possible under a right wing ascendency that is slowly creeping to fascism. See ya next year!