Monday, August 21, 2006

Addicted to Food? Brain scan suggests it's very possible.

Today's Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Free registration required) has a fascinating article on obesity and food addiction.
"Science suggests that you can be hooked on chocolate, cookies and chips. Recently, high-tech medical scans have revealed surprising similarities in the brain chemistry of drug addicts and chronic overeaters -- resemblances that have caught the attention of the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Here, the latest evidence, plus a program for regaining control. Addiction and obesity both run in families, and experts believe that genetic components account for at least some of a person's vulnerability. But animal research also suggests that the environment -- mainly, how often you're exposed to an addictive substance -- can shift brain neurochemistry, increasing the likelihood of addiction. [Snip]

...research at the U.S. Department of Energy's Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York suggests they may be missing something else instead: adequate brain receptors for dopamine, a chemical that is part of the brain's motivation and reward system. One hint that environment plays a role comes from studies in which animals were repeatedly given cocaine: Frequent use actually decreased the number of dopamine receptors, says Dr. Gene-Jack Wang of Brookhaven, leader of a series of studies investigating the brain chemistry of chronic overeaters. In fact, he says, the brains of obese people and drug addicts look strikingly similar: "Both have fewer dopamine receptors than normal subjects."

If that's the case, we live in an environment perfectly designed to nurture food addictions. For decades, food-industry scientists have been working hard to figure out how better to hook people, says Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Yale-Griffin Prevention Research Center in Derby, Conn., and author of The Flavor Point Diet. Manufacturers now excel at hitting the sweet spot -- making us crave more and more of a food.

"In a supermarket recently, I actually found a pasta sauce that, serving for serving, contained more sugar than a chocolate fudge sauce, though the sweetness was hidden because the pasta sauce was so salty," Katz says. "The question is, why would anybody pour a packet of sugar over their pasta? And the answer is that if you get used to that much sugar, another pasta sauce will taste too bland. The food industry wants us to need more and more of the substance to feel satisfied, so we'll go out and buy more and more of it."

Animal research at Princeton University has also shown that the way you indulge may have consequences. Dr. Bart Hoebel, a professor of psychology, placed rats on an alternating schedule of 12 hours with no food, followed by 12 hours of access to both rat chow and a solution of 10 percent sugar, which is about as sweet as a soft drink -- a pattern that results in binge eating. As the days went by, the rats began upping their intake of the sugar solution, drinking more and more at a time. Hoebel found that after about a month, the rats' brains were producing surges of dopamine during their binges.

"In rats, binge eating promotes addiction, just like binge drinking promotes alcohol addiction," Hoebel says. "It's possible that repeatedly bingeing on sweets could actually change the circuitry of your brain" -- and make you want ever-increasing amounts.

Researchers aren't ready to declare the case closed on the causes of our collective weight problem."
The article goes on to provide a program designed to reduce overeating.

The key is that 1. our environment is designed to make us want to overeat (Well, Duh) 2. Such overeating can lead to a food addiction (This is a bit surprising) and 3. (the really interesting part of this article) someone addicted to overeating tends to have a reduced number of Dopamine receptors in their brain reward system very much like people addicted to drugs such as cocaine. There is also a 4. and that is that the addictiveness of food grows less quickly than does addiction to cocaine. But that merely suggests it is rather like addiction to alcohol.

Food sales people are out to get us hooked. It means more money to them. It is hard to walk down a supermarket isle while being aware of the marketing techniques that are being used there and also ignore that this is a fact. Why are salted snacks so expensive? They are mildly addictive. Why do the best selling soda waters all have caffeine in them? Because caffeine is addictive. So is sugar. That's also why fast foods which are fried sell better than submarine sandwiches. Fat is a big addictor. These are sort of low-level addictions, but enough so that they cause us to choose the "better" (that is, the addictive products) over the ones which are not similarly designed to attract our attention. These addictions also seem to cause us to eat more of the addictive foods.

And don't try to tell me you haven't gotten lazy, bought a large bag of Fritos corn chips or salted tortilla chips along with a large can or jar of dip and eaten that instead of a decent supper. Most of us have.

Just remember, this research rather strongly suggests that these decisions are being hard-wired into your brain. As the dopamine receptors are reduced in number, it becomes more difficult to get the same amount of satisfaction from the same amount of addictive foods, so you get either more of them or you switch to stronger ones. What was that old advertisement for Lay's potato chips? Bet you can't eat just one! wasn't it? They weren't lying to us. Odds were on their side, and this research shows why.

It is known that cocaine addicts require more and more coke to get the same high. Or ask Rush Limbaugh about whether the same amount of OxyContin continues to provide the same high, or whether you need more and more. Now consider this process also working with fattening foods.

Anyone who has ever given up red meat will tell you how addictive that stuff is. Without the fat, you don't feel full, no matter how much rabbit food you have eaten. It is the reason most people cannot become vegetarians. Army soldiers who were advisors to the South Vietnames Army discovered this within days of leaving American foods.

This is an area of research to follow. It could largely restructure how Americans eat, meaning changing food distribution and restaurants.

Just remember, those industries will fight back, and this research could well disappear. There are fortunes on line here. What does public health matter when money can be lost by wealthy people?

Why are middle class wages not increasing with the economy?

Kevin Drum has what seems to me to be a rather strong argument. He starts with the differences in the wages for average players before and after WW II, and shows what the key difference has been in the last few decades. He then goes on to show how this analogy applies to the general American economy.

Why has the income distribution in the U.S. changed from rather broadly based to instead more relatively poor workers and a few much more highly paid already wealthy individuals? I find his argument quite compelling. Go look at it.

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Joe Lieberman is a growing cancer on the Democratic Party

Joe Lieberman from Connecticut is from all stories, really a rather nice guy. Unfortunately, he is too nice to make enemies of powerful people he may want to use later on for his own purposes. So he does them favors.

The problem is, those powerful people have all been Republicans, lobbyists or single issue pressure groups for the last decade or so. He isn't accountahle to those who elected him. He is accountable to those powerful people. He describes this as catering to his own conscience and "working to get things done by working with both sides." His concept of getting things done is voting so that he is on the winning side in passing legislation, mo matter how bad the legislation is. It is clear that he sees no difference between the Democratic Party which has sent him to Washington to represent them, and the Republicans who are the current powerful men in the Senate. Over at MyDD Chris Stoller writes:
"The pervasive lack of accountability among Democrats is a real weakness for progressives, and the fact that there is some measure of accountability in the form of potential primary challenges means that there will be a behavioral change on the part of many members of Congress. No longer will they be able to listen to former staffers turned lobbyists, because they know that Lieberman's example could be their own. No longer can they take for granted their safety in safe districts, because Donna Edwards isn't the only principled and connected progressive around. And some of the tools and methodologies we're developing can be used to effectively damage Republican candidates, as we saw with the internet's mauling of George Allen after his macaca comments. Accountabiliy works all around."
So when Lieberman was defeated in the Connecticut Democratic Primary by the newcomer Ned Lamont who (successfully) charged that he was too close to the incompetent President George W. Bush, he has moved to an independent run in the general election.

He is doing this by using the Republican side of all the issues that matter, especially our position in Iraq and with Isreal. This has become very obvious, since he has a lead in the polls for the general election, but it is made up mostly of Republican voters.

This causes two problems. Connecticut is a strong Democratic-leaning state. The Republican candidate there has no chance of election at all, which is demonstrated by the fact that the Republican Party is in fact actively campaigning for Lieberman rather than for their own candidate. With Lieberman running, there is a strong likelihood that there will be a significant turnout of Republicans to vote for Joe, where as the Republican candidate will cause them to sit at home and not bother. Since three Republican House members are facing a strong likelihood of being defeated (thus giving the Democrats 20% of the 15 seats needed to take control of the House) that turnout could defeat the Democratic effort to gain control of the House. Self-centered Joe does not care. He just wants to keep his fancy office on the Hill.

But what if the Democrats get 50 seats in the Senate, plus Joe. With his advantages as an incumbant and the Republicans overwhelmingly votig for him, the Republicans may lose the Senate Majority except when they really need it. Joe has promised to caucus with the Democrats. But he hasn't promised to vote with them. When it comes to approving another right-wing anti-abortion Supreme Court Justice, Joe will vote for him, and Cheney will break the tie. America loses. The Democrats lose. Only the wacked out right-wing wins by electing Joe Lieberman.

When it comes to investigating Haliburton and others for war-profiteering, Joe has always voted for the big companies. He voted, for example, for the bankruptcy bill to support the big banks gouging the public with credit card debt. Joe will not vote with the Democrats to investigate war-profiteers.

Joe Lieberman, for all his smiles and friendliness, is an on-going and growing cancer on the Democratic Party. With him in the Senate as an independent, the Republicans retain effective control over the Senate.

Add that to the strong possibility that he will cost the Democrats the House come November, and it is clear. The Democrats need cancer surgery to survive. They need to excise Joe Lieberman.

Friday, August 18, 2006

A review of Sirota's "Hostile Takeover."

Boadicea writes a review of David Sirota's "Hostile Takeover.

If you are interested you can click through here.

Hostile Takeover: How Big Business Bought Our Government and how We Can Take It Back
Hostile Takeover: How Big Business Bought Our Government and how We Can Take It Back

A framework for Democratic Congressional candidates.

Over at MyDD Chris Bowers, Rick Jacobs, Matt Stoller and Joel Wright analyze the outcome of the CA 50 election in May for an idea of what issues will defeat Republicans. If you want to see their analysis, go read the post. Otherwise, here are the issues that they recommend be used against Republicans:
"Recommendations
Candidates should run aggressively on accountability and the war in Iraq. Here are six specific `rules of thumb' we recommend you use for planning purposes.

* 1. Iraq must be central in your campaign and you must blame Republicans for it Ignoring Iraq, downplaying its significance, or accepting Bush's framework by not blaming leaders is a sign to voters that you are weak, unlikely to bring change, and not addressing the main issue of the day. Regardless of how you approach the policy going forward in Iraq, the key trait that voters seek is a willingness to hold failed leaders accountable for the debacle. Be willing to uncover the truth, place blame, and demand consequences.

* 2. The debate on whether Bush is a competent, trustworthy President is over. He is considered among Republicans, Democrats, and Independents a leader who makes mistakes and then won't tell the truth about those mistakes. This is not about competence. This is about massive failure of leadership with no end in sight.

* 3. Republicans cannot run against Bush and Iraq. Voters do not think that Republicans are willing to hold Bush or other administration figures accountable for those mistakes, so Republican Congressional dissent on the war is unlikely to help Republicans. But dissent will, in fact, work to Democratic candidates' advantage. It shows strength and, most importantly, principle and personal values.

* 4. `Terrorism' scares only work in the absence of strong accountability messaging, since Republicans are no longer trustworthy on issues of war and peace. Voters know Republicans will let mistakes slide and they want accountability in the face of that.

* 5. Oversight beats withdrawal. Journalists or other messengers who frame politics in terms of a need to have an alternative plan in contrast to Bush are insulting voters, and should be taken to task aggressively for framing false choices and misrepresenting the role of Congress. Congress primarily serves as military oversight, not military policy. Voters know that.

* 6. Pick a fight, any fight. Voters need to be convinced that Democrats can credibly challenge Bush. Whether the fight is over de-funding Cheney's personal staff, attacking John Bolton's confirmation, impeachment hearings, or stopping war profiteering with a new `Truman Commission', Democratic candidates must demonstrate strength through aggressive confrontation where the term "accountability" is more than just an abstraction or corporate lingo. It must be made real through a fight you plan to pick.

When presented with squeals from journalists and Republicans over your fight, a resolute willingness to not back off in the face of criticism is key. Your willingness to hold Bush accountable must be made real. For example, demand that the president and the party in power come to account for having squandered lives, security and treasure while enriching CEOs of major corporations such as Halliburton.

Here's a real-world example of this dynamic from US history: Harry Truman became vice president because as a US Senator, he had the backbone to demand that major figures in the American economy either give back money stolen in the provision of shoddy materiel for World War II, or go to jail for treason.

In sum, whatever fights you pick, whether specific local issues or national ones, our poll shows that accountability regarding Bush, Congressional Republicans and your opponent is crucial to building the credibility you need in order to break through with a majority vote in November. Democrats, Independents and even many Republicans want this to occur. Do it."
In short, the lessons seem to be that the public has given up on the Bush administration and the Republicans, but they are looking for someone who will fight for what is right to vote for. Using these rules of thumb will position a Democratic challenger to be that fighting opponent of the failed Republicans.

2006 is going to be an interesting election. REAL interesting. And it is just the lead-up to the 2008 Presidential election.

The Iraq disaster explained

Let’s look at Digby’s excellent comparison of the mistakes made in Viet Nam to those mistakes that Bush and the Republicans have made in Iraq. That comparison can then be used to see why we actually invaded Iraq and what we are doing there.

Digby has provided the best comparison I have seen between the mistakes America made in Viet Nam and the utter disaster that the Republicans have made in Iraq.
"Bush has always been trafficking in cognitive dissonance with his Iraq talk and it's caught up with him. He tried to gloss over some fundamental illogic with slick PR and it didn't work.

From the very beginning he framed his war on terror as being "with us or with the terrorists." He then consciously conflated Iraq with 9/11 and sent many soldiers over there with the idea that they were fighting those who attacked us. But the facts never supported that and they knew it. Since we live in a world in which outright conquest is no longer acceptable, once his WMD rationale evaporated, he was forced to lean on the idea that we are there to help the Iraqi people and "spread democracy." He obviously came to believe it.

He has tried to make distinctions between the good Iraqis who are "with us" and the bad ones who are "against us" --- "terrorists" "bitter enders" "insurgents" --- but many of the soldiers over there and their families back home and Bush's racist supporters see the "enemy" as simply Iraqis --- or just Arabs or Muslims. And I suspect that a whole lot of other Americans are just plain confused. It's very hard to finesse all that and it's one of the reasons why the occupation has been such a disaster. Nobody really knows what we're doing there, not us, not them. Now Iraqis are boldly demonstrating in favor of terrorists and even Bush can no longer hide his own confusion and dismay.

In that sense, this war makes Vietnam a moment of foreign policy clarity. It was certainly a mistake to put so much importance on the idea that the US could not afford to fail in a small proxy war or risk communism taking over the Far East. But at least everyone understood the premise and could either agree or disagree with it. This war in Iraq is totally incomprehensible to everyone. We invaded for dozens of disparate reasons none of which were entirely compelling and all of which have been proven to be mistaken. We are throwing away hundreds of billions and yet there are now many more terrorists in Iraq than there were before the invasion and many more all around the world because of it. Oil prices are sky high and rising. The Middle East is more unstable than it’s been in many decades. Lots and lots of people are dying.

This is all because after 9/11 we had a leadership who ruthlessly exploited the crisis for political gain and an influential advisory cabal who had waited for 30 years to unleash their half-witted ideological experiments on the world. None of it ever made any sense and now that the fog of 9/11`has lifted, that much, at least, is starting to become clear to most people. The problem is that the mess they've left is so huge it's virtually impossible to clean up. Damn, I don't think I've ever seen a case of "sow the wind, reap the whirlwind" unfold so quickly and so starkly right before my very eyes."
Let's be very clear about this. The disputed Presidential election of 2000 gave us a President with no qualifications for the job beyond the name of his father and the associated ability to raise political money, an in with the Christian Right, and some ability to read a teleprompter and not look scary doing it. "W" had no prior interest in foreign affairs and only a very surface familiarity with conservative Republican political issues. He also had his trusted friends and faith in his intuition at reading people.

When a small fanatical terrorist jihadi group with the goal of sending martyrs out to die to spread Allah spectacularly attacked America on September 11, Bush had no clue how to respond. So he turned to his closest advisors, starting with the ultimate executive Department insiders, Vice President Dick Cheney and Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

These were two men who had entered service in the White House during the Nixon administration, come to personal power together in the Ford administration following Nixon's resignation, and had worked together in Republican administrations ever since. Along the way they had grown close to the intellectual descendents of Leopold Strasser and Washington Sen. "Scoop" Jackson who came to be known as Neo-Conservatives inpart because of their hardrock basic belief that America was failing in international relations because the failure of the Vietnam War and the devisiveness it created in America led to a strong reluctance to use military force to get what it wanted. Cheney and Rumsfeld agreed on this.

Also, both Cheney and Rumsfeld had previously been Sec. of Defense and both very much distrusted the Central Intelligence Agency and the Intelligence analysis process that was centered there.

Both also wanted control of the oil in the Middle East since that was the world's largest supply of the stuff and it was and remains critical to the functioning of an effective modern military force. Both also believed that Bush 41 had failed when he stopped the Persian Gulf War without invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein. This had left Saddam in power where they felt he was the most important source of instability in the Middle East.

If Cheney and Rumsfeld are teamed up with Karl Rove, the ultimate Republican political strategist for whom the only limits to what can be done to win an election center on whether you are caught and successfully prosecuted, you get both control fo the military and great political power, perhaps enough to actually use the military.

Rove had already bamboozled nearly half the American voters into voting for the single most unqualified man ever to actually hold the office of President, and had effective control of the propaganda mechanisms built by the Conservatives to place their politicians into office. FOX News, Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, the National Review and the Weekly Standard under William Kristol (son of Irving Kristol, one of the original NeoConservatives) could all be pulled together to propagandize for an invasion of Iraq which would topple Saddam and give U.S. troops a place for bases from which they could influence the various mostly tribal and national entities in the Middle East.

So together Rove, Rumsfeld and Cheney offered the confused and lost George W. Bush a quick and easy solution to the problem of al Qaeda and 9/11. Don't spend time chasing the non-state entity that actually conducted the attack on America. This would be a shadow war against a phantom enemy that depended on the capabilities of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) as the lead government department and all others including Rumsfeld's military) in support of the CIA operations. But the CIA had failed to predict the collapse of the USSR, failed to predict that Iraq would invade Kuwait, and failed to predict 9/11. [This last ignores the many warnings that Tenet had given the President prior to 9/11.] So the flawed and illogical idea of solving Terrorism by invading Iraq was sold to Bush.

Instead of fighting a shadow war with the flawed CIA, why not use the great strength of the American military to bring the Middle East out of its barbarism and into the new, modern, globalized world that is already feeding off their oil stock. This could be done by regime change in Iraq, eliminating the dictatorship of Saddam and replace it with a modern western-style democracy based on the kind of free market that so many would-be immigrants from the Middle East prove they want by trying to get to America. Such an effort would use the ability of the U.S. military to defeat the Iraqi national military in a conventional war in which America is clearly the finest in the world. The U.S. military could easily defeat the Iraqi military and remove Saddam. All that was needed was to give the American public the political will to use the American military in this way. This was a political problem.

To solve the political problem, all they had to do was string together a political fantasy long enough to convince the U.S. Congress to approve some sort legislation that could be interpreted as authorizing the preemptive invasion of Iraq. Once that is done, everything else would just fall in place. And after the fact, when it all worked, no one would blame them for shading the truth a bit to get that legislation passed. As CIA Director told President Bush, “It’s a slam dunk!”

See? That's why we invaded Iraq. Not WMD. Not bringing "Freedom" to the Iraqis. We just wanted a stable Middle East that would sell us their oil cheaply and quit sending those damned terrorists who keep sky-jacking airplanes and killing people in big western cities. WMD? Terrorist connections of Saddam? Bringing Freedom to the Iraqis? All just PR fluff to bring in the rubes in Congress to pass some legislation that would then be used to justify the preemptive attack on Iraq and then ignored.

That's not so incomprehensible, is it?

The only minor problem is that it didn't work! Sensible people knew it wouldn't work, but sensible people do not become conservative NeoCons. And since the NeoCons could not convince their critics that the NeoCon arguments would work, they simply quit listening to their critics, grabbed power, and rammed this Iraqi - Middle Eastern idiocy through - at a roughly predictable cost that the NeoCons and Republicans refused to even look at before starting.

Now, as Digby so succinctly put it "...the mess they've left is so huge it's virtually impossible to clean up."

Does anyone really think that the Republicans are sufficiently "Tough on Terrorism" that they should be left in charge of protecting America? I sure don't. They've been shadow-boxing phantoms that exist more in their own minds than in reality. They have failed for five years. They really need to be replaced by more reality-based individuals. Does anyone really think that the Republicans are sufficiently "Tough on Terrorism" that they should be left in charge of protecting America? I sure don't.

Want to see the solutions that this administration have offered to clear up the mess they have created in Iraq? They pushed to Israeli government to invade Lebanon so as to destroy Hezbollah, and they are discussing air strikes on Iraq, possibly including nuclear weapons. Their idea of a diplomatic solution is to send Condi Rice out to delay the end of the failed Israeli attack on southern Lebanon. Conservative military solutions haven't failed. Conservatives have simply not pushed them to their obvious successful conclusions. So don't stop the failed process, increase it.

The Republicans offer nothing but ideology-based fantasy and war as ways of fixing the mess they have made by starting the Iraq war because of their ideology-based fantasies. The first step in fixing this massive mess the Republicans have created is to remove the Republicans from power. After that, perhaps some other nations will help us out of the hole Bush and the Republicans have dug for America.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

What really happened to Lieberman?

The first blogs I read when I get online are TPM - Josh Marshall and Washington Monthly - Kevin Drum., followed by Digby. Marshall does immediate reporting, Drum adds explanation and relationship to the mainstrream media and thorws in some less topical but interesting subjects. Digby is third, because his insight adds a real long-term element.

Recently Marshall and Drum wrote about the meaning of Joe Leiberman's defeat in the Connecticut Democratic Primary, followed by an outstanding analysis by Digby. What they are doing, collectively, is writing a description of what happened in the Democratic primary in Connecticut. Forget the hype. Something really did happen that all Democrats should rejoice.

I'm a Democratic moderate (what else could you call a non-Hispanic Democrat in Texas today?) I have followed the Connecticut Democratic Primary because it seemed to be crystallizing something significant about the strange and self-defeating "bipartisanship" that the so-called "Democrat" Lieberman represents. I haven't been sure what was happening, but it has been clear for months that it was really significant for the national Democratic Party. Then the Connecticut primary happened, and - WOW! - Lieberman lost!

We are now in the stage of trying to determine what happened. Joe Lieberman, the three term Democratic Senator from Connecticut with all the advantages of incumbency, lost the Primary to someone who wasn't even known in January 2006.

That Joe only went down 52% to 48% belies the real tectonic change in Democrats. The change has been coming, but it was a movement of individuals opposed by the Democratic elites, the people with a major personal stake in the existing structure, the DLC, and the routine money sources.

This change in the Democrats is also rather strongly opposed by the Republicans. Notice that it is now the Republicans who are now supporting Lieberman. They speak for him to the national media and they are the source of a lot of the campaign money he is using. They understand that the forces behind Lamont are really, really dangerous to current Republican right-wing supremacy in national U.S. politics.

Joe Lieberman himself is not the target of the new movement. He is a rather tragic dinosaur left over from the past, who was almost perfectly adapted to the position he moved to occupy through the 1990's, and through his total inadaptivity to the new environment has become politically extinct. The tragedy is for the well-meaning individual that he clearly is. The change is that of new species moving into the changed environment.

I was not previously a strong partisan in American politics. I reserved my strong partisanship for Nazis, Fascists, and Communists internationally. They needed to be destroyed. Within American politics I considered the racists and segregationists to be beneath contempt but not politically significant except within specific locations like Pasadena, Texas. Bob Dole was usually wrong, but was an honorable opponent.

These new Republicans are the same ultra-Right authoritarians who hate the rule of law and the Constitution. They demand that their opponents not only be defeated but also be destroyed. Since they are basically wrong in almost all areas, they must be defeated at all costs. There is simply is no moderate middle in that Calculus. You cannot compromise with opponents who will use that compromise to destroy you.

I recognized in the 60's that nations that allowed Communist movements to join the government soon became totally Communist. This is the mechanism they used. Every compromise was used to destroy their opponents. They simply are not honorable political opponents who battle out ideas in democracies. They are autocrats who demand the total destruction of any who oppose their takeover of political control. I find it interesting that the American right wing has learned so much from their Communist opponents. There is no room for moderate compromise with such opponents. Ask Max Clelland.

The Lieberman - Lamont primary has crystallized this fact for the American public, whether they realize it or not.

Digby has clarified the Marshall - Drum positions quite well. His ability to do that is why I read him regularly.

What should Democrats do when they retake the House?

Robert Reich, Secretary of Labor under Clinton, gives his ideas on his blog. I really like the way Bob Reich thinks. This could lay the groundwork for a real change in the relationship of the American people with their government. Here is is:
I told him House Dems should use the two years instead to lay the groundwork for a new Democratic agenda. Bring in expert witnesses. Put new ideas on table. Frame the central issues boldly. Don't get caught up in arid policy-wonkdom.

For example, instead of framing basic economic question as whether to roll back Bush's tax cuts, make it how to recreate good jobs at good wages and rebuild the middle class. Consider ideas for doing this through trade policy, industrial policy, antitrust, publicly-financed research and development, and stronger trade unions.

Instead of framing central foreign-policy question as whether we should have invaded Iraq, make it how to partition Iraq into Shiite, Suni, and Kurdish zones while America gets out. Focus the national security debate on how to control loose nukes and fissile material, and secure American ports. Open direct negotiations with North Korea and Iran.

On energy and the environment, they should offer ideas for developing new non-fossil based energy industries in America, and how to ratify a realistic Kyoto accord.

Help the public understand how these are all related. Show why, for example, we'll never have a sane foreign policy unless we reduce our dependence on oil, how the creation of new alternative-energy industries can help create good jobs in America, why good jobs are essential to a reviving the middle class and saving the environment.

Most important, be positive. Avoid the blame game. Bush's shameful record is plain enough. Start the new record. Help America dream again.
If Democrats really think that government is key to bring back the American middle class and recreate a society based on equality of all individuals before the law, freedom and creativity, then there must be a major education of what the government does that is worth the money to Americans and how it works. This is a major step in that direction.

Almost as important, it makes a real distinction between the Democrats and the Republicans who gain political power only by building fear in the voting populace and claiming that the only real power America has that is worth anything is its military power.

This could lead to a world in which every person has the opportunity to build a real future for themselves and their families, and do it by building things instead of destroying what others have which is what wars do. As we should all recognize now, no one has won anything from our invasion of Iraq which is worth what has been and continiues to be destroyed. The Hezbollah attack on Isreal that set off the war which has devestated Lebanon only maked that a lot more clear. Once again military forces have been unleashed, and everyone in the Middle East is a net loser.

Robert Reich's suggestion for the pending new leaders of the House of Representatives should be required to read his views.

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Direct mind control of machines has arrived

Scientists have developed a sensor which when implanted in a paralyzed man's brain allows him to control machines directly with his thoughts. See the story at BBC.

This should first be great for paralyzed persons and quadraplegics, but it should also help build even better prosthetics for those who lose a limb.

On the reverse side, the fact that this control of machines has been made to work could also provide more evidence regarding what thoughts are, and how they can be read externally. Once that happens, thoughts might even be transmitted directly to other brains.

But I am, of course, merely "Blue-skying." A year ago, though, this device itself was nothing more than "Blue-skying."

Monday, August 14, 2006

George Will dispensed his "wisdom" on ABC show Sunday

I watched ABC's Stephanopolous news show yesterday morning, and was surprised when George Will stated - dripping with sarcasm - that there would be a whole sub-genre of paranoid bloggers who will be describing the Bush administration as attempting to use the recent arrests of alleged terrorists in Great Britain to suggest that the Bush administration was using that action for political purposes.

"Paranoid?" Where has Will been? The Bush administration used the build up to the invasion of Iraq to maintain control of the House of Representatives in 2002. The Bush administration then used the on-going and worsening war in Iraq to slip by Kerry and keep the Presidency for Bush in the Presidential election of 2004.

So it is now Paranoid to think that the Bush administration will trumpet the arrests of 24 alleged terrorists in Great Britain and Pakistan to try to manipulate the public fear so that voters will send Republicans rather than Democrats back to Congress this year? Dick Cheney, Ken Mehlman and others have already been describing the threat the arrests show America faces and claiming that the Democrats are "too weak" to deal with it. The same Republicans have been spouting the line that the rejection of the renomination of Joe Lieberman by the Connecticut Democrats shows that Democrats are weak on security.

This is in spite of the fact that the continuously worsening situation in Iraq shows that the current ‚“Continue the Course in Iraq” supposed plan has been as much a failure as the original invasion of Iraq which was sold as supposedly to prevent Saddam from giving his Nukes (nonexistent) to al Queda and bin Laden (who was a much greater threat to Iraq than any other external threat Saddam faced. Except us, of course.) The threat was total fantasy designed by the Bush/Cheney administration to increase public fear and get more voters to vote for the Republicans. It worked.

Is it paranoid to think that the current administration which has failed every time it took action to prevent terrorism will continue with its failed ideas? EVERYTHING THE BUSH/CHENEY ADMINISTRATION HAS DONE WHICH SUPPOSEDLY WOULD DEFEND AMERICA FROM TERRORISTS HAS IN FACT INCREASED THE NUMBER OF TERRORISTS AND OTHER ENEMIES WE FACE! Except from their PR fake-outs, they have NO successes in their so-called Global War on Terror (GWOT). None! None at all.

Right now they are trumpeting the British success in arresting the alleged terrorists (using criminal and Intelligence procedures, not military procedures) as justifaication for their continued failures.

The GWOT has increased the terrorist threat while it was being used to increase the number of Republicans elected to government.

The news stories that show the administration wanted the arrests to occur before the Connecticut Democratic Primary so that Joe Lieberman could be renominated are rife. [See US pressured Brits to arrest airline terrorists early for an example. There are many others.]

George, if you think that no patriotic American would use a War for partisan political advantage, you are correct. This administration is NOT made up of "Patriotic Americans." It is made up of rabid partisan conservatives who are working hard to create an authoritarian right-wing ideological nation out of America, one which no longer looks back to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution with its irritating "Bill of Rights" as foundation documents. They will use every political advantage they can find or create to change our American society into their right-wing utopia. They have proven it for six years with no exceptions. Given choices to work for their right-wing fascist militaristic ideology or to build an America that looks like the ideals Thomas Jefferson wrote into the Declaration of Independence, they have never failed to chose the right-wing fascist militaristic ideology.

That's not "Paranoia" George. It's history repeating itself. I guess you are just blind.

Solar sustem may lose a planet

Could it be true? Will the Solar system be reduced to only eight planets?

Yep. It's possible. Go check CNN.

Sunday, August 13, 2006

Internal US politics is more important to bush administration than effective counterterrorism.

If you give the Bush administration a choice between the most effective anti-terrorist actions and those which provide the most political bang-for-the-buck, the Bush people will always chose the option that gives them the political advantage. Long term effectiveness is irrelevant to them.

Via Digby I offer this report from Daily Kos.

The Bush administration, when informed by the British of the airline plot, wanted to expose it before the Connecticut Democratic Primary to give Joe Lieberman an advantage. The British wanted to let the plot run a bit longer so that they could collect some more participants, since there was no real threat the plot would go off very soon.

Once again the Bush administration finds the political advantage of exposing an on-going investigation matters more to them than does the effectiveness of that investigation.

Sounds like Dick Cheney at work again. Why would any American ally bother to tell the U.S. about an on-going investigation?

Saturday, August 12, 2006

US pressured Brits to arrest airline terrorists early

I've been waiting for this, or something similar. MSNBC reports that the airline terrorists were not ready to activate their plan, but the White House wanted to arrest them immediately.
"A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports."[Snip]

Monitoring of Rauf
[suspected ringleader Rashid Rauf in Pakistan], in particular, apparently played a critical role, revealing that the plotters had tested the explosive liquid mixture they planned to use at a location outside Britain. NBC News has previously reported that the explosive mixture was tested in Pakistan. The source said the suspects in Britain had obtained at least some of the materials for the explosive but had not yet actually prepared or mixed it.
Trust the White House to push for the most politically advantageous timing (in America) of arrests rather than the timing that advances the investigation better.

Friday, August 11, 2006

Ohio Atty Gen says Padgett can replace Ney

Last Monday I wrote about embattled Congressman Bob Ney [R - OH 18] withdrawing from the Fall election because of his problems with investigations into his dealings with Jack Abramoff. The Republicans wanted to replace him with Joy Padgett. The question is whether she would be eligible because earlier this year she ran in the Republican Primary for Lt. Governor - on a ticket in which Attorney General Jim Petro was running for Governor.

Now the Ohio Attorney General has ruled [Surprise!!] that Padgett's earlier run for a State office should not prevent her from running in the General Election for the Federal office of Congressman in district 18. Ohio's "Sore Loser Law does not prevent her from running to replace Bob Ney. The Columbus Dispatch carries the story.

Needless to say, the Democrats are crying "Foul!" and plan to get that ruling overturned. How they are going to do it has not yet become clear.

Today's bomb scare and Red terror code.

Since I have little faith in the objectiveness of reports from the police and Intelligence agencies, and none whatsoever in the Bush administration's politically-oriented color-coded warning system [Warns of new Bush political moves, not real terror events which they either don't know of or don't tell us of.] I have not yet felt like anything I might write can add to clarity. Whatever, Billmon suffers under the same paranoia snd distrust that I do, and writes something that seems to clarify it a bit. Here's part of what he has to offer:
"Juan Cole has his typical informed comments -- in this case pointing out the implications of the growing polarization (and the radicalization of a substantial minority) in the British Asian Muslim community. The presence inside Britain of such a large terrorist cell, capable of at least preparing for major attacks, despite the crackdown after last year's London bombings, has some fairly chilling implications. Londonstan indeed."

Or it would have such implications, if the official story were essentially true. One can choose one's degree of paranoia here, since the only information sources about the plot are the police and intelligence agencies involved, plus the political spinmeisters.

Many of us have grown accustomed enough to the pointless politicization of color-coded alerts to be instantly skeptical. But the idea that Al Qaeda had a "big one" in the works -- and would have loved to have pulled the trigger in the middle of Israel's war on Lebanon -- certainly isn't inherently implausible. I've mentioned the possibility myself.

On the other hand, none of the previous known plots hatched by the British wing of the movement have come anywhere close to the alleged scope and sophistication of this one. To expect a bunch of idiots who literally couldn't figure out how to set their own shoes on fire to pull off the simultaneous destruction of up to 20 planes using liquid explosives is a bit of a stretch.

I'm also dubious about the claim that the plotters were following -- almost to the letter -- an 11-year old plan developed by Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to blow up a dozen or so U.S. airliners over the Pacific. Following the script for a previously exposed and foiled operation doesn't exactly seem like a global terrorism best practice. Are we dealing with professionals or amateurs here? Or is it a little bit of both, plus a healthy dose of hype from a couple of guys (Bush and Blair) who right now can use all the hype -- and raw, adrenalized fear -- they can get?

Like I said, it's a BYOP (bring your own paranoia) party. The truth behind the latest episode of the "Osama bin Laden Hour" is one of those unknown unknowns Rumsfeld talks about. Would the security apparatuses of two leading capitalist powers (including the commercial heavyweight champion of the world) really turn the global transportation system on its ear just for the sake of a temporary political advantage? And if that's really what's really going on, why isn't it October right now? "

My first thought is always that the Bush administration Republicans don't want me to know anything about the real terror threats, just the faked ones they gin up to gain political advantage in the next American election.

If I know about the real threats I might try to hold them responible for not actually trying to stop them. As Ron Suskind points out in his book "The One Percent Doctrine", many experts on bin Laden in the CIA have concluded that bin Laden specifically has times some of his statements to support the Reelection of Bush in 2004. That's not too surprising considering how closely the Bush family and the bin Laden family have been over the decades since WW II.

We'll have to see how this current set of warnings plays out, and maybe they won't sputter into made-up threats as the Miami group and the Northeastern group did. Still, I'm glad I'm not going anywhere by air in the next few weeks.

The Lessons of '72 and Vietnam

The Republican spinmeisters have been touting a warped view of the so-called lessons of Vietnam. Fortunately we have Digby to set the record straight. Here is a quote:
"The fact is that most Democrats, not being natural authoritarians, don't put up with this crap from their leaders, of either party. They hold them accountable. Now I realize that for some twisted illogical reason that means they are seen as unserious and irresponsible in American politics, but it doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do. When your country is engaged in dangerous wars based on lies and obscure reasoning, it is immoral to say nothing simply because you are afraid it will make you look bad. I'm proud of the history of Democrats standing up and opposing these two wars.

In 2006, despite all the hyperventilating in the press, the party is not split at all, and it's easy to see why. This is a war that was relentlessly hyped by the Republicans who ruthlessly bullied anybody who even thought about opposing it. That war is now a proven disaster. Today's polling shows that nearly 90% of the Democratic party want the US to withdraw from Iraq and believe it was a mistake. Sixty percent of the nation as a whole feels the same way with a fair number of Republicans in that group. This is not a fringe position and there is no reason to fear that the Democratic Party will be seen as unrepentant hippies unless the press insists on repeating this narrative ad nauseum."
From here Digby goes into the history of the politics behind the Vietnam war and Nixon in ways the Republicans don't dare.

So go read Digby. It is one of his best posts ever.

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Rove to Lieberman: "Boss wants to help you any way he can."

From Hotline On Call:
According to a close Lieberman adviser, the President's political guru, Karl Rove, has reached out to the Lieberman camp with a message straight from the Oval Office: "The boss wants to help. Whatever we can do, we will do."
This is single source stuff so far, apparently from George Stephanopolis.

If true, it tells everything Democrats need to know about Lieberman. Lieberman's best response is "Thanks but no thanks." but there mere fact that it is so easly believable shows what Lieberman's real weakness is. He really IS too close to Bush. Lieberman is in fact a Bush enabler, and what America needs is to isolate Bush and stop him from doing any more damage to this nation.

Tom DeLay to take name off ballot for November

The Houston Chronicle reports today that Tom DeLay will ask that his name be removed from the November 7th ballot.

Texas Law allows him to do this, but the Republicans cannot select a replacement to be placed on the ballot. The Republican Primary which Tom DeLay won did that, and the will of the voters cannot be overridden.

The Republican will instead run a write-in candidate. This is a real longshot. They aren't going to let the Democratic candidate Nick Lampson have the seat by default, but this is pretty much the next best thing.

Next we will wait to see who the Republicans run and how much money that candidate can raise. The sources will be especially interesting. Currently Lampson has about $2.2 million on hand with which to run the race.


Previous post
Tom DeLay must stay on ballot for Nov.

This post includes links to all my previous posts on the subject of the DeLay reelection effort.

Billmon does some math

Billmon is looking at the comparative casualty rates between the Israeli Defense Forces and the Hezbollah in South Lebanon. The report of casualties is what U.S. Army General U.S. Grant used to call "the Butcher's Bill." It is the daily report evey military commander reads, and the one he always wants to avoid. In this case, it has a lot to do with who wins and who loses militarily in South Lebanon.

The IDF is on the attack against a dug-in and well prepared defending force, and is still apparently killing two Hezbollah for every killed Israeli. The Israelis are quite casualty-averse, while the Shia Hezbollah are attracted to the idea of death in battle. A good part of this is demographic. Israelis find it a lot harder to replace deald and injured soldiers than the Hezbollah does. Politically this puts the Israelis in a rather bad position. The Butcher's Bill is the first thing everyone will look at when determining who won and who lost in combat in South Lebanon. Largely this is because everyone is aware that whatever territory in Lebanon the Israelis take militarily now they will give back later.

Modern conventional war gives the advantage to a well-dug-in and prepared defense force. That's what made WW I in France such a very bloody war. It becomes a war of attrition in which the attacker loses many more troops than the defender does.

That's why the tank was invented. Unlike Infantry, tanks could survive against machine guns and travel over barbed wire, so in an attack they could break through the infantry trench lines and get into the enemy rear. The infantry forces were then lost unless they retreated. Anti-tank weapons and anti-tank mines have made such attacks much bloodier for the attackers, and the Hezbollah has plenty of those weapons. The result is that no direct attack on prepared, trained and supplied infantry is a low-casualty operation. The Butcher's Bill has gone up on this kind of operation again.

In Korea the North Koreans had taken all of South Korea except the port of Pusan at the southern tip of the penninsula and seemed likely to conquer all of Korea. The American and ROK defense of Pusan was extremely bloody, until General MacArthur made an end run with an amphibious attack through the port of Inchon on the west central coast of Korea.

By taking Inchon and moving across central Korea to the west the Americans and Republic of Korea (ROK) forces cut the supply lines supporting the North Korean armies in the South. This quickly stopped their supply of food, ammunition and fuel. The North Korean army quickly started its retreat and never recovered. The Chinese had to cross the Yalu and counterattack in December of 1950 to recover.

The Israelis have to be looking at "an Inchon." They can't go to the west and circle Hezbollah without going through Syria, bringing the Syrians into the war against them. I have no idea how likely an amphibious attack from the mediterrenean is, either geologically, demographically or politically. Nor do I know how likely and reasonable an air assault to some location north of the main Hezbollah lines is. [The two are not exclusive, either.]

Unlike Korea where the North Koreans were an attacking army which had no time to set up prepared positions and supply depots, the Hezbollah has had six years to lay in large supplies of food and ammunition. Cutting the supply lines will not automatically cause them to retreat as the North Koreans were forced to do in 1950. But it would set up the conditions for what is effectively a siege. The IDF could quit attacking in high casualty battles and wait for the Hezbollah to start running out of food and ammunition. When they do, their choice would be to attack into Israeli prepared positions or sit still and starve. Neither is a high casualty operation for the IDF. The Israeli Butcher's Bill, which seems to be the key political marker to winning and losing for the Israelis, would be much lower.

I have no idea what the political repercussions of these operations might be, other than being reasonably certain that circling the Hezbollah through Syria on the East is likely to drag Syria into the war against Israel. Nor do I know if the Israelis could logistically handle either an amphibious attack into Lebanon or an air assault into Lebanon, or the necessary resupply of the attacking troops. But such an effort would be a lower casualty route to appearing to win against Hezbollah in South Lebanon.

Billmon is quite negative on the likely favorable outcome for the Israelis if they continue the current attacks against the dug-in and prepared Hezbollah. This is true IF the battle continues as a war of attrition. My suggestions are that it be made a war of movement. Should that occur, then the political outcome is a lot more favorable to the Israelis.

Anyway, that's my opinion of the current situation. Of course, what I would prefer is a situation in which the Butcher's Bill is no casualties on either side. This war is a frigging waste on both sides.

Addendum Aug 09, 2006
What I have describes above assumes that Hezbollah has taken on the characteristics of a conventional army to a large extent. From what I have read, this seems to be the case. That's why the Israelis are suffering such high casualties as they attack.

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Lieberman concedes, promises independent run

From the Hartford Courant Joe Lieberman concedes defeat and promises to run as an intependent in the general election in November.

Pretty well proves he's not a Democrat, doesn't it?

Now we see which other Democratic Senators support him and which oned support the Democratic nominee, Ned Lamont.

Another interesting question is going to be how many Republican Senators (and others) support his run as an independent.

This is final - Courant has called primary for Lamont.

The Hartford Courant has called the the Connecticut Democratic Primary for Ned Lamont.
U.S. Senate - - Dem Primary
733 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 97.99%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 144,005 51.79%
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 134,026 48.21%

[OK. If there is a way to do tables in blogger, I have no clue what it is. HTML doesn't want to work here.]

But it's Lamont 51.79%,
Lieberman 48.21%

CT Dem Primary - Lamont appears to win

This isn't final, but it appears extremely likely that Ned Lamont has beaten Joe Lieberman for the Democratic nomination for Connecticut Senator. From the Hartford Courant:

U.S. Senate - - Dem Primary
724 of 748 Precincts Reporting - 96.79%
Name Party Votes Pct
Lamont, Ned Dem 141,623 51.85
Lieberman, Joe (i) Dem 131,491 48.15
Democratic progressives are ecstatic. Washington D.C. pundits are happy to have a week's worth of off-the-wall pundanticy to write. Joe Lieberman is gnashing his teeth and planning revenge as salespersons pushing sack-cloth and ashes knock on his door. Connecticut Republicans prepare to offer Joe their support for his independent run for Senator.

Further away, all kinds of politicians are wondering how to work blogging into their campaign plans. First, most of them must learn to spell "blogging" and learn how to say it without a sour look on their faces.

Finally, campaign strategists for House and Senate elections are trying to decide what this means for the issues to be fought over this November. Most pollsters on contract are probably on the telephone even as I blog.

The news and internet is going to be very busy tonight, and everyone will be gossiping about this tomorrow morning.

Bullmoose just really pissed me off!

Bullmoose really pissed me off with his post.

This was my response:
Bullmoose,

When you stated
The Bush Administration should absolutely be subjected to tough accountability and scrutiny. It has made many grievous errors in this war. The Bushies have too often divided the country. But, should we lose all perspective?
You said a mouthfull. It is the Bush administration which has divided the country. It is the Congressional Republican Party who has refused to demand accountability and review of the executive department and the policies of this sick and ignorant administration.

The result has been for the government to dig a rathole for America to dive into, then drag the U.S. down the predictable rathole into the excrement. Then they demand that everyone who wishes to continue be considered a patriotic American continue digging no matter how bad the results. It is the Republicans who have equated support of the Bush administration and the Republican conservatives as being what every American must do to continue to be patriotic. It is the Republicans who have rejected nearly 80 years of movement towards an America which lives up to the dreams embodied in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the recognition that slavery is unAmerican. It is the Republican conservatives and the Bush administraion who have rejected all criticism of their strange image of the new, NeoConservative America on pain of becoming a Benedict Arnold to the new 21st Century America.

I reject this view totally. My (sadly Republican-controlled) Congress has refused to demand ANY accountability and has in fact spent much of its time shooting the messengers who report the failures of the Republican/Bush administration policies. When they don't shoot them, they bury them and ignore them as has beed done with reviews of the Intelligence available before 9/11. We have been left with an Constitutionally uncontrolled Presidential administration which considers attempts to understand the source of international, economic and social problems to be weakness. This is an administration which does not accept government as a legitimate social function and considers only business as valid functions, wanting to drown government in a bathtub. This is an administration which considers the only solution to social and international problems to be military force, and which chafes at the restrictions which sensible people place on using nuclear weapons on those the government leaders consider enemies.

And you try to tell ME that I have lost all perspective?

What in God's name is Wrong with you? The Republican Party and the President who uses only intuition to make decisions and depends on Cheney and the NeoCons are destroying everything that matters in American government. Even most Republicans see that. But not Joe Lieberman and not you and the DLC. You must have a replica of Chamberlain's umbrella on your mantle, one to which you genuflect each day.

Wake up. If it's not too late, it is damned close. The Republican Party and the Bush administration are very close to destroying two centuries of American liberal democracy. We really need to stop these enemies of the American Dream.

Where is your perspective? Can't you se how wrong - how very unAmerican all this is?


Richard Brewer
Fort Worth, Texas

Monday, August 07, 2006

"Stand with Bush and you lose!!"

Is this going to be the Democratic catch-phrase for the Novermber 2006 election? Kos considers it a possibility, and refers to Atrios who also thinks it possible.

It's interesting. It would play off the difficulties that Sen. Lieberman is having in the Connecticut Democratic Primary, but it also taps into The general national anti-Bush discontent instead of being merely anti-war.

Ney out - chosen replacement not eligible

I hadn't posted on Bob Ney's withdrawal from the campaign for reelection to his 18th Congressional District of Ohio, because every place I looked at had beaten me to it. But this is less widely known.

According to Jeff Seemann For Congress over at Daily Kos Ney's hand-picked successor, Joy Padgett, is ineligible to run in Ney's place because earlier this year she ran in the Republican Primary for Lt. Governor and lost.

Jeff says that Ohio has what he calls a "Sore Loser Law." The law says that if you run in a primary and lose, you are ineligible to run for office in the main election. It is designed to prevent candidates from running in the primary, losing, and tben running an independent bid for office in the general election. [Connecticut Voters - Hint! Hint!]

So it looks like Congress is losing another crooked Republican Congressman, and has lucked out in not getting as a replacement a particularly nasty piece of work.

I would also guess that this leaves a pretty good possibility for Zack Space, the Democratic candidate for that seat, to win the election.

Scalia denies DeLay request for stay

Looks like Tom DeLay is going to run for reelection to Congress whether he likes it or not. From The Houston Chronicle we get the news that Scalia has denied Tom's request for a stay of last week's Fifth Circuit Appeals Court ruling that he cannot be replaced on the ballot by some other Republican candidate.

See last week's post Tom DeLay must stay on the ballot for Nov. 2006 election.

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Not with a bang but a --- brownout??

It seems that tight budgets are hitting everywhere. Or is it just mismanagement of government. For privacy advocates this could have large elements of good news built in.

What am I writing about, you say? The National Security Agency (NSA) is getting too big for its power supplies. From the Baltimore Sun:
"The demand for electricity to operate its expanding intelligence systems has left the high-tech eavesdropping agency on the verge of exceeding its power supply, the lifeblood of its sprawling 350-acre Fort Meade headquarters, according to current and former intelligence officials.

Agency officials anticipated the problem nearly a decade ago as they looked ahead at the technology needs of the agency, sources said, but it was never made a priority, and now the agency's ability to keep its operations going is threatened. The NSA is already unable to install some costly and sophisticated new equipment, including two new supercomputers, for fear of blowing out the electrical infrastructure, they said.

At minimum, the problem could produce disruptions leading to outages and power surges at the Fort Meade headquarters, hampering the work of intelligence analysts and damaging equipment, they said. At worst, it could force a virtual shutdown of the agency, paralyzing the intelligence operation, erasing crucial intelligence data and causing irreparable damage to computer systems -- all detrimental to the fight against terrorism."
I'm frankly glad that it is not a problem that I have to solve. Besides being humorous, there really are serious security implications. The U.S. really has external enemies it badly needs to keep track of, and this looks like it could be a problem.

Of course, it may put a real crimp on Cheney's plans to turn Americs into a right-wing dictatorship, also.

There is also this line in the article: "Agency officials anticipated the problem nearly a decade ago as they looked ahead at the technology needs of the agency, sources said, but it was never made a priority,..." I seem to recall that the new Director of Central Intelligence, General Michael V. Hayden, USAF, had some previous connection with the NSA. From the DIA webpage "General Hayden has wide experience in leadership positions throughout the Intelligence Community. From March 1999 to April 2005, he served as Director, National Security Agency/Chief, Central Security Service (NSA/CSS), Fort George G. Meade, Maryland. "

Now we all know that to get promoted in the Bush administration you have to screw up big time. Is this shortage of electricity at the NSA the failure that got General Hayden promoted to Director of Central Intellignece?

Inquiring minds and Democrats want to know.

[Thanks extended to Empty Wheel at the Next Hurrah]

Saturday, August 05, 2006

A two-cushion bank shot??

Kevin Drum offers an explation which may explain why the Isaelis have apperently chosen a self-destructive strategy.

Friday, August 04, 2006

Senate kills extension of Estate Tax

The Senate considered H.R. 5970, which was the Cloture Motion on the Minimum Wage increase to which the Republicans running the House of Representatives had attached provisions that would extend the repeal of the estate tax in association with both a $2.10 per hour increase in the minimum wage together with a provision that would override State and Local minimum wage laws when they are higher than the federal minimum. From CNN:
"Republicans needed 60 votes to advance their bill, which links a $2.10 increase in the $5.15 federal minimum wage over three years to reductions on estate taxes next decade. Passed by the House last Saturday, the bill got a 56-42 vote, four votes short of succeeding.

For Republicans, the combination could have neutralized a Democratic campaign issue while also advancing an estate tax cut, a priority that may have an uncertain future if the GOP loses seats in Congress in the November election.

The GOP strategy put Democrats in an uncomfortable position. Either they could vote against the bill -- thus rejecting a minimum wage increase -- or they could vote for it -- thus agreeing to cut taxes on multimillion-dollar estates. Most rejected the bill, blocking a GOP victory months before the election.
[Snip]

Republicans were dealt a blow when two Democrats, Sens. Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, both of Washington, announced they planned to oppose the GOP's bill.

"This is a cynical ploy on the part of the Republican leadership in an election year," Cantwell said in a statement.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, had tried repeatedly this year to repeal or reduce the estate tax, derided as the "death tax" by its opponents."
The vote was essentially along party lines with the exception that Democrats Joe Lieberman [D CT] and Max Baucus [D MT] are listed as not voting, and extremely interesting - Bill Frist [R TN] voted Nay along with the Democrats.

Here is the list of who voted which way from the U.S. Senate website.

Grouped By Vote Position
YEAs ---56
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Burr (R-NC)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Collins (R-ME)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Martinez (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)

Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Warner (R-VA)
NAYs ---42
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Conrad (D-ND)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Frist (R-TN)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Obama (D-IL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Salazar (D-CO)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Wyden (D-OR)
Not Voting - 2
Baucus (D-MT)
Lieberman (D-CT)

Apparently Bill Frist's vote with the Democrats is a parliamentary ploy that may allow him (as Senate Majority Leader) to bring the bill back up for vote again this session. The other votes with the other party appear to be related to tight election races in November as do the two Senators who did not vote.

Still, the cynical bill the House sent to the Senate is really a typical Republican effort to play politics rather than to legislate items badly needed by the nation. It's been a decade since the minimu, wage was increased, and Congressmen and Senators have gotten nearly 40% pay raise during that period just to keep THEM up with the cost of living. People who actually work for a living certainly deserve as much.

Thursday, August 03, 2006

Tom DeLay must stay on ballot for Nov 2006 election.

Hubris "In Greek, an excess of pride; the most common character defect (one interpretation of the Greek hamartia) of the protagonist in Greek tragedy. "Pride goeth before a fall" is an Elizabethan expression of this foundation of tragedy."

The picture which should come to mind now is Tom DeLay. He has been the House Majority Leader since before Bush was selected President in 2000. He has been quoted as saying "I AM the government!" and has been called the most powerful leader of the House in over a century. But his efforts to gain Republican control of the Texas House of Representatives so that they would do a mid-decade redistricting of the Texas Congressional House Districts and increase the Republican majority in the House by five appear to have been his undoing.

While the redistricting worked and in 2004 four Texas Democratic Congressmen were replaced by Republicans, the District Attorney of Austin, TX determined that Tom DeLay used corporate funds to gain control of the Texas House. This violates a century-old Texas law. Since Tom DeLay knew this would be a problem, he arranged that the corporate funds be laundered the funds through the Republican National Committee before they were sent to his TRMPAC in Texas. The trial is pending. Remember that the trial is pending. It is important to the rest of the story.

Besides the Texas charges against Tom DeLay, several of Tom DeLays' Congressional aides have admitted guilt to the Justice Department in connection with bribery schemes run by Jack Abramoff. The aides and Jack Abramoff are all expected to testify against Tom DeLay in similar charges.

When Tom was indicted by Ronnie Earle he was required by the House Republican rules to step down as House Majority Leader. This rule was put into effect in 1994 when the Republicans first took control of the House under Newt Gingrich with Tom as Whip.

This rule was window dressing put in place during the euphoria when the Republicans for the first time in forty years took control of the House. It was because the Republicans had run against the "corrupt Democratic leaders of the House", and the rule was intended to show that the Republicans were the new, clean broom which had come in to correct the problems of the long term Democratic Leadership.

When Ronnie Earle had first begun investigating how the Republican takeover of the Texas House of Representatives had been finance in 2002, the Republicans in the Federal House of Representatives had attempted to rescind that rule, but the public outcry at the obvious corruption of such a move made them reinstate it. This was the lead-up to Tom DeLay's resignation as House Majority Leader and his replacement by Rep. John Boehner when the indictments were handed down.

Tom DeLay has been paying for lawyers ever since. It hasn't been cheap, either. He currently has about $1.5 million on hand, and roughly $1 million in unpaid legal bills. Since the Federal Election Commission provided a ruling to then Congressman (and now federal prisoner) Randy "Duke" Cunningham permitting him to use campaign contributions to pay for his legal bills for accusations related to his job as a Congressman, Tom DeLay has happily used his campaign contributions to pay his legal bills.

This is rather obviously one reason why he ran in the Texas Republican Primary for reelection. As long as he was running he could collect more campaign contributions, much of which he knew would be needed for legal bills. His defense attorney, Dick DeGuerin (interestingly a Democrat) is one of the best and most expensive defense attorneys in Texas.

The other reason he ran in the Primary as he has since made clear is that he detests the three Republicans who were attempting to take advantage of his political weakness and replace him in his Congressional seat. By Running in the Primary for reelection Tom felt that he could defeat them and decide who his replacement in Congressional District 22 would be. So he ran for the Republican nomination for reelection to his own seat in Congress, and won. All he had to do then was drop out of the race and have the Texas Republican Party appoint someone with less political baggage to run in his place. Congressional District 22 has been gerrymandered to have a majority of Republican voters. With DeLay running, the Democrat running against him could almost certainly win the seat, but with some other Republican candidate it would be more difficult to pull out a Democratic win.

The problem is that Texas has a law requiring that once a candidate has won his party primary he may withdraw but his party cannot replace him. His name must remain on the ballot. The idea is that it is unfair for a party to have a candidate who for some reason deconstructs as a viable candidate, then have the party bring in a ringer at the last minute. So DeLay declared that he had moved his residence to his townhouse in Virginia, and the Texas State Republican Party would declare him ineligible to run for his district 22 seat. Then they would choose his replacement.

The Democrats then took this to court, stating that since Tom still owned his home in Sugarland, TX and his wife still lived there no proof existed that he was ineligible to run for reelection. A Republican-appointed federal Judge agreed with the Democrats and ordered the Texas Republican Party to keep his name on the ballot. Tom appealed to the fifth circuit court of appeals in New Orleans (one of the most conservative courts in America) where the three judge panel who drew the case just decided that the district court judge was completely correct (See CNN.) The result is that Tom is still required to keep his name on the ballot.

The Democrat, Nick Lampson, is an experienced Congressman who had lost his seat as part of DeLay's redistricting. He has a war chest of at least $2 million with which to campaign for the seat. Tom has only $.5 million left and still has to pay lawyers when D.A. Ronnie Early actually tries him on the charges for which he has been indicted. As of this time there are only three months left until the election, and Tom has not begun to campaign, assuming that he dares spend the money to campaign rather than pay his lawyers.

So Tom has, of course, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. By now, even if the USSC reverses the lower court decisions (a long shot) the Texas Republicans still have to anoint a candidate, start a campaign and let the voters know who is is, and try to defeat the well-known and well-funded Nick Lampson. All of this in the face of a strong national anti-Republican mood and the clear legal and ethical problems that have caused Tom DeLay to withdraw.

So that's the story of Tom DeLay. Barring some really unanticipated events between now and the November general election, he is toast as a Congressman and Nick Lampson will represent the district 22.

See the Hubris? Tom DeLay is the lead in a Greek tragedy of his own making.


Previous posts about the DeLay case. (Note- there are links in each post to other news sources. This is intended as a research source.)

Why carry on in Iraq? In Lebanon? Because we can't let them win. No other reason.

David Broder has published an editorial today that the White House needs to read.

The question in both Iraq and in Lebanon is why we are fighting there now. The only remaining answer, David points out, is "we can't afford to let the other guy win."

Not that if we continue what we are doing we or the Israelis will win the war we each are fighting. Both know that doing what we are doing right now will not lead to winning. The only reason we are continuing to do what we are doing is to keep the other side from winning! There is no policy in either theater of war that will lead to a win for either us or the Israelis. Apparently the hope is that after enough time passes, maybe something will change and we'll get lucky.

Broder then points out that for the U.S. in the two previous stalemates we finally negotiated a stalemate in Korea (that resulted in over 50 years of Peace in which the North Koreans have not again invaded South Korea) and we simply left South Viet Nam and effectively turned it over to the man we had been fighting against from the time the French left in 1954, twenty years earlier. The result of that is that Viet Nam is a trading partner of the U.S. and we have our embassy located in Hanoi instead of Saigon.

So what will happen if we simply walk away from Iraq, or the Israelis simply stop shooting up Lebanon and ask the neighboring states for help?

I've got more confidence that we could walk away from Iraq as we did with Viet Nam and have little negative repercussion. I frankly have a lot less trust in the members of Hezbollah. Israel has already turned South Lebanon over to them once, and all they did was to build a larger and stronger army and continue to attack Israel. But in neither case is "Stay the Course!" going to give any satisfactory result.

"Stay the Course!" is the strategy of the alcoholic who wakes up every morning and starts drinking again, hoping that somehow he'll not end the day as an alcoholic loser. That's doing the same thing that got bad results yesterday all over again, but hoping that some miracle will save you today and give a better result. As the alcoholics in AA will point out, that is the definition of insanity.

Which, come to think of it, is a real good description of the Bush administration and the Republican leadership in Congress. They are insulated, isolated, and insane.

David Broder is much too polite to utter that obvious truth, but he came very close in today's editorial.

[Thanks to Kevin Drum]

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

The case for the coming Recession

Here are some warnings:
  • Today a crucial milestone was passed, as the Treasury Yield Curve entered "top to bottom inversion", where the shortest t-bill had a higher interest rate than the longest t-bond.
  • The reality is that the present economy is dependent on federal stimulus, it has never evolved a self-sustaining reason to be.
  • Bernanke admits we have had our time of "above trendline" growth, and must expect "below trendline" growth going forward. That's econospeak for recession, down turn or slog – slowing of growth.
Stirling Newberry makes the case that the current economy is about to turn down sharply. Go read it. There's lots more.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Diebold voting machines should be recalled immediatedly

The Open Voting Foundtation sent out a new report yesterday on Diebold touchscreen voting machines. Here is the money quote:
"“This may be the worst security flaw we have seen in touch screen voting machines,” says Open Voting Foundation president, Alan Dechert. Upon examining the inner workings of one of the most popular paperless touch screen voting machines used in public elections in the United States, it has been determined that with the flip of a single switch inside, the machine can behave in a completely different manner compared to the tested and certified version.

“Diebold has made the testing and certification process practically irrelevant,”
according to Dechert. “If you have access to these machines and you want to rig an election, anything is possible with the Diebold TS -- and it could be done without leaving a trace. All you need is a screwdriver.”

...in the TS, a completely legal and certified set of files can be instantly overridden and illegal uncertified code be made dominant in the system, and then this situation can be reversed leaving the legal code dominant again in a matter of minutes.

“These findings underscore the need for open testing and certification. There is no way such a security vulnerability should be allowed. These systems should be recalled” "
Steven D at Booman Trubune discusses this system. So does DocGonzo at dKos.

Let me remind everyone that the Republicans were losing the Presidential election of 1876 but still had control of South Carolina and Louisiana during Reconstruction, so they had those two states report that Republican Rutherford B. Hayes had gotten their electoral votes (when actually the Democrats had.) Rutherford B. Hayes was appointed President by one electoral vote. (Wikipedia) Republicans have been stealing Presidential elections ever since. Diebold machines are just one more tool they use in a long series of crookedness.

PA Repubs buy PA Green Party to help Santorum

Rick Santorum, currently the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, is running behind the Democratic candidate, Bob Casey. So the Green Party of Pennsylvania got donations of about $100,000 out of nowhere in order to run a petition operation that allowed them to register a Green Party candidate for the Senate job. The Green Party had not received ANY donations before June 1, 2006, and has no possible hope of winning the election. But he WILL draw votes that otherwise would have gone to Bob Casey.

[No Green Party voter in his right mind would vote for Rick Santorum.]

So where do you think the money came from that allowed the Green Party to pay for the petition campaign? Kos thinks the record shows all the donors were Santorum supporters.

Gee, do you think so?

Katherine Harris ignored FL Republican leaders when they withdrew support

Sometimes I wonder why I keep coming back to the Katherine Harris campaign for Senator from Florida, but it's a lot like when the fire truck drove past me last night and I wondered what was on fire. The Katherine Harris campaign keeps sending up heavy smoke signals of disaster, but it never burns totally down.

CNN has reported that last May the Florida Republican Party told her bluntly that she cannot possibly defeat the Democratic Senator Ben Nelson, so she should withdraw her candidacy. Ms. Harris' response was (from the CNN report):
"[But] the next day, Harris turned in paperwork to get her name on the September 5 Republican primary ballot.

The letter
[from by the Florida Republican Party to Ms Harris May 7] came as Gov. Jeb Bush was trying to get state House Speaker Allan Bense into the race. Bense announced later that week that he would not enter the race. [Snip]

The letter was also signed by national committeewoman Sharon Day and national committeeman Paul Senft.

Harris contended Monday that all three were pressured into signing the letter by "the party elite."

"I knew the background; I knew that pressure was applied," she said. "I knew the motivation and I knew the players, and I knew they had no choice."
The problem for the Republicans is that Katherine Harris will defeat any of the current Republican candidates who are running for the nomination. It's just that she cannot win in the November election when she faces the current Democratic Senator, Ben Nelson.

In attempting to discern why this is happening from between the lines of the news reports I have read since last Spring, it appears to me that Ms. Harris has a lock on the Republican Social Conservatives [Religious Right] who will vote for her no matter what. But once she gets their vote, no one else is likely to vote for her. The result is that she is unbeatable in the Republican Primary, and cannot win the general election in November because no one outside the religious right will vote for her.


Prior articles on Katherine Harris