Always About Standards

Seattle PI:

President Bush likes to talk about high standards, accountability and personal responsibility. While Bush expects students, school systems and future retirees to toe the line, his friends get an easier deal.

Consider White House political strategist Karl Rove, now implicated in off-the-record discussions that preceded the exposure of a CIA officer's identity. Viewed in the best light, Rove was engaged in leaking information about national security for the political purpose of making the president's sales pitch for the Iraqi invasion appear to have been honest. Whether Rove did anything illegal, he did exactly what the White House repeatedly said he had never done. Rove offered the media information about Valerie Plame's role at the CIA after her husband, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, criticized the administration's attempts to connect Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction. And Rove's conduct met the standard for removal from his post that the president laid down in 2004 when he promised to fire anyone involved in the leak.

Now that Rove's involvement in leaking information has been confirmed, the president has decided to modify that pledge. Bush let it be known on Monday that he would fire any staffer who "committed a crime."

Schoolchildren, take note. There will still be high standards for you, your teachers and your schools. But at the White House, the rule is a little different: No pal left behind. Unless, of course, he is an out-and-out criminal. That's quite a standard.

Time to Get It Up...

No, no, not that. I'm not the dysfunctional Rafael Palmeiro. I'm talking about this here article in the NYTIMES that talks about Costco. It's the anti-Wal-Mart.

It's still the most emailed article of the day since Monday. That's rare.

Condoleeza Rice

My favorite of all chinese dishes:

ABO SHOUK, Sudan (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday told Sudan's president his government had a "credibility problem" on the issue of Darfur and she wanted to see "actions not words."

In a meeting marred by scuffles involving Rice's aides and Sudanese security officials, Rice told President Omar Hassan al-Bashir to stop violence, especially against women, in the remote western region of his country.

"I said to the Sudanese government that they had a credibility problem with the international community I have said; actions not words,"' Rice said in a round of interviews with journalists at a Darfur refugee camp.

It's rumored the Sudanese President asked her if she could define "irony."

Murkying Up the Water

Is John Roberts' wife.

Pffff

This is great stuff. Bill Hemmer, gone from CNN and joining FOX News. This is what he had to say:

"Bill is a journalist of great integrity, and his strong reporting and anchoring skills will prove beneficial to the entire Fox News team," Fox News chairman Roger Ailes said in a statement.

Ailes, Hemmer said, was a significant reason for his deciding to go to Fox.

"He values honesty and loyalty," Hemmer said.

That's fucken funny.

The Beasties

Their newest album, "To the 5 Boroughs" just came on my iTunes.

I love the Beasties, and their last show at the Garden was incredible, but this album is so lame. It's like the same shit they did a few years ago, but worse and played.

Are they done with making good albums? Can they even, or has their sound just become stale?

Your Senate at Work

Karl Rove is out of the news for a few days, Tom Delay was saved by Karl Rove, Joseph Wilson is still be assaulted with lies, the Iraq War continues, and blah blah blah blah blah.

Ray McGovern asks a really good question in this article, wondering how come the US Senate, especially the Intelligence Committee on Senator Pat Roberts of Kansas, has never investigated the controversial source of this entire issue: the forged documents from Italy.

Why has the United States government let this pass? This document has helped lead us into a war, created a media stir where reporters are going to jail, and resulted in a White House willing to expose CIA Agents just to send a message to those who disagree. It's ridiculous, and yet Senator Roberts, and the rest of the Senate seem uninterested in getting to the bottom of where the memo came from.

Maybe it's because Dick Cheney and crew had something to do with it? Sounds about right.

The Sunni-led Insurgency

Former Baathists, right? How many times have you heard that?

I guess the Sunni-led insurgency is killing Sunnis now:

Two Sunni Arabs involved in drafting Iraq's constitution were assassinated Tuesday afternoon on a busy street in central Baghdad, delivering a setback to the country's fledgling democratic process.

The two men, Mijbil Issa and Dhamin Hussein al-Obeidi, were in a car that was taking them from a meeting of committee members when they were attacked, the officials said. A bodyguard, Aziz Ebrahim, was also killed.

This is working out well. We've really got a foothold on this thing.

From TPM

How an American President should act.

Another Thought

This from Linda Greenhouse:

Democratic senators and liberal advocacy groups were wary Tuesday night, vowing to probe beneath the smooth surface.

"Let's be clear: Judge Roberts is not a stealth nominee, because the president's inner circle knows his views well, even if Americans do not," Nan Aron, president of the Alliance for Justice, said in a statement issued moments after the nomination was announced.

And indeed, the nominee's network of associations suggests a firm identification on the conservative side of the legal spectrum: not only his involvement with the Federalist Society, but his service, before he became a judge, on the legal advisory council of the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, a group here that describes its goal as promoting "free enterprise, private ownership of property, balanced use of private and public resources, limited government, and a fair and efficient judiciary." It is a group that attracts support from many prominent conservatives.

I agree, President does know Roberts' beliefs, at least to some level, and the only level Bush is concerned with is the level he knows about: BIG BUSINESS.

John Roberts will be a pro-business guy all the way, and it's the business community that has really lined Bush's pockets. In addition, if he gets to choose one justice he has to make the right call, and he did that, at least in his own mind.

See, they don't know about Roberts' abortion/life stance, but there's a paper trail to suggest he's one of them. If he's not one of them they can claim they too were duped, but not so when it comes to Roberts' stance on business, affirmative action, and presidential powers. This Bush got right.

Roberts' affiliation with conservative legal groups says quite a bit. Although, like other conservatives, joining could just be what he needed to do in order to arrive at this point in his career. Here's the salient point: when Bush is done with office he's not going to be a minister, nor is he going to work for the Family Values Coalition (or similar group). Bush will be selling his book (What a Moron Eats for Breakfast), and trying to find his way into the corporate board rooms of America, looking for the big payout. This judge was chosen for the big payout.

For so long it seemed Bush was only catering to religious groups. Post-corporate scandals it has been difficult for Bush to really give back to big business. He has, but this is truly that "give back." Bush knows who butters the bread. His father has always known who butters the bread. Karl Rove knows big business butters the bread. They haven't spent the better part of a decade changing the structure of lobbying firms, and lobbyists, to have it thrown away with a "God" choice. No, this guy is all about helping industry first, and if he can restrict the rights of women along the way, even better.

The only issue for Republicans is Roberts will walk through this confirmation unscathed. The next judge will be their bin Laden. The Democrats will say, "Roberts is a talented judge, and we confirmed him relatively easily, but Judge bin Laden? No. Waaaay too fundamental for us." It'll be a real fight.

Bush will feel the need to get a real freakamentalist on there, and that'll be the next one.

Here's that Chin Twitch

I never noticed it, at least not to this level. It's priceless stuff as Narm and SiFli point out. It's as if every time he accomplishes a complete sentence he has to reset his face. I was crying watching this on CSPAN last night.

This is great stuff.

My Thoughts and Those of Friends

I didn't see the press conference, but I've noticed that stupid smirk since day one. It's the smirk of a putz.

Narmcharmsky:

I've seen GW do that little trick with his jaw before, but watching him announce John Roberts tonight it is unbelievably distracting (and hilarious) to watch him do it after every other sentence. Have I been missing this comedy for the past 5 years?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SiFli:

I think he was consciously trying not to break out his infamous smirk, which I’ve always understood as reflecting both a) the president seeking congratulations for reading out loud a complete sentence (ala the way my two year old looks at me and smiles when he puts a square block into a square hole) and b) a sense of how cool he feels to actually be in a position of such immense power.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WEINISH:

John ROberts has a history of being extremely pro-business, and in the Scalia mold a "strict constitutionalist" even though Scalia is not one. No one is.

He's not the pro-life/pro-god guy, but I feel like if Bush chose him he must have guaranteed he would be. (But all Republicans lie non-stop)

Here's the catch: Roberts came up with the Reagan/Bush folk, and made his move to the DC court under Bush I. Bush I was not a pro-life freak, at least not that we know of. Roberts does have a history of making it difficult for women to get abortions, and actually defending organizations who have tried to prevent them from doing so. However, Roberts' opinions are on behalf of the government, and not from the bench.

I find this fact important because when working for the government you are essentially stating the positions of your bosses, not necessarily your own. Sure, Roberts may be hostile to civil rights (i believe he is), he may be pro-business (he is), and he may be hostile to environmentalists (i think he is), but many of his stances don't necessarily come from decisions he has handed down as a judge.

The decisions he has handed down as a judge, like the one this week allowing POWs at Guantanamo to be held and tried under the extra-legal powers granted to Bush, are disturbing. But remember, Republicans are usually in it for themselves, and do whatever it takes to get to the top. Roberts is now on top. He's no longer beholden to anyone. There have certainly been justices in the past who have surprised, i.e., Souter and Brennan. I wouldn't be overly surprised to see this guy in the middle of many cases. The words he speaks from here on out are words for eternity; not opinions on behalf of a President.

Would I be surprised if he's a right wing fuck like the rest? Well, no, but we'll see.

George W. Bush has fucked up everything he has touched, so why should this be different?

I do think John Roberts will overturn any case that is for Affirmative Action. That you can be sure of.

There's only two people in the world who will see John Roberts and say, "That's my niggah!" and they are JC Watts and Clarence Thomas.

Like I Figured

John Roberts, as I figured when I spoke about this issue on Monday.

White, male, seemingly moderate Republican, from the Northeast, not too sure about his abortion stance, but pretty positive about his goose-stepping America First, Pro-Business, ideology.

But read my take from the other day.

He's part of the HARVARD ELITE!!! THE IVY LEAGUE ELITE!!! More hypocrisy? Of course.

Don't Worry, Howie

They can always change!

"President Bush backed away from his initial pledge and lowered the ethics bar," Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean said. "Bush should be prepared to keep his word, and to enforce a high standard of ethics in the White House as he promised from the beginning of his administration."

Afterall, they changed the ethics rules in the House, and then changed them back. So there's always hope.

Who knews "ethics" were subject to constant change?

Someone to Blame

for Vietnam, and that person was General William Westmoreland. He died yesterday at age 91.

It's really hard to blame a person who by all acounts was a "hard-charging soldier" who wanted to "take the fight to the enemy." Those who were responsible for giving Westmoreland the reigns are as responsible, if not more so, than General Westmoreland. Had General Creighton Abrams, who followed Westmoreland as top dog in Vietnam, been at the helm before Westmoreland I'm sure the results would have been exactly the same.

This war was near impossible to win, and from Westmoreland's perspective, we didn't lose. So many Americans view the situation as one where we lost. This led to serious military issues that we're certainly still feeling today. However, Westmoreland saw the situation as one where we held off Communist dominance of Southeast Asia for 10 years. Not sure he's right, or wrong, but in the eyes of Americans, especially today, unless we are the clear victors we are the losers.

Westmoreland believed the US could be victorious if we went into Laos and Cambodia, which were hideouts/safehavens for the Vietnamese. Of course the US was reluctant to do this under Nixon and Johnson. Well, Nixon actually did do it, but covertly, which of course made the situation worse. Westmoreland is a soldier, hired to do the job of a soldier, and from his perspective in order to win this war those things needed to be done. Political realities didn't allow for this to happen. It's hard to blame Westmoreland for that. In a way it's like asking the center of the basketball team to do everything he can to score, but never dunk.

I rarely blame military leaders except when they outright lie, or distort reality, like General Tommy Franks liked to do. Vietnam, in hindsight, was a serious mistake, but it seems to me Westmoreland takes way too much of the blame for a situation that was well beyond his abilities to fix.

America always has to blame someone, and they sure did. It'd be a shame if he died thinking he was responsible for doing what was asked of him.

I wonder who they'll blame for Iraq, a situation that will result in grander political problems, and which was started under false pretenses to begin with. Don't worry, they'll blame someone.

I've got 7-1 odds on Bill Clinton...

Ummm

I forgot there were any.

What a Shame

Looks like small business owners will have to cutback their orders of Skoal and orange vests:

Looking to punish this city for enacting a ban on assault weapons, the National Rifle Association announced on Monday that it had canceled plans to hold its national convention here in 2007, an event that was expected to pump more than $15 million into the local economy.

"Thanks to the Columbus City Council, 65,000 people will not be coming to your wonderful Greater Columbus Convention Center in 2007," Wayne LaPierre, the rifle association's executive vice president, said in a news conference here. "The only thing the City Council can expect out of their decision is the gratitude of those businesses in the city we go to instead."

The announcement came five days after Mayor Michael Coleman signed legislation outlawing the sale of certain kinds of military-style semiautomatic weapons and requiring people who purchased such guns before the law's effective date, Aug. 12, to register them with the police.

Not really a big deal since 30,000 of them will arrive in September for the Texas v. Ohio State football game, regardless.

Deportes

Just wondering about Rafael Palmeiro, who just reached 3,000+ hits to go along with his 567 Homeruns. This guy has never won the Homerun crown, never won a MVP, and has been pretty much invisible throughout his career. He did win 3 Gold Gloves, but one of those, I believe his last, was such a joke. He actually played 20 games at first that season, and most of his games as a DH. The press, apparently just looked at the few errors he made. Basically, he should have won 2 Gold Gloves, but for all I know the same thing happened in those years. Pre-hard-on medicine, this guy was just a really good hitter who no one cared about.

Ahhh, but this guy is a FIRST BALLOT HALL OF FAMER, right? Right. Statistics will say he is. So what does that say about modern day statistics?

Now take a guy like Ryne Sandberg, one of my all time favorites. This guy is a 10-time All Star, 9-time Gold Glover, holds the record for most games played at second without an error, and won an MVP!

Sandberg was not a first ballot Hall of Fame player. He'll certainly make the Hall of Fame at some point, but lets be honest, who was the better player: Ryne Sandberg or the guy the Cubs traded, Rafael Palmeiro?

It's not even close.

Take it to the BANC

That's the Blame America Never Crowd.

They're the people who make America a tough place to defend. Their leadership is stacked with people like George Bush, Dick Cheney, and the usual characters, and the message is carried out by the goose-stepping media you see on FOX and hear on your radio stations I'm sure.

That's right, the BANC.

It's pretty obvious why these people are the way they are, but I thought I'd lay it out for posterity's sake.

If you recall the 90s under Clinton, and even a bit of Bush, was a time for the Blame the American President Crowd. These current BANCers are the same people, for the most part. My how things have changed. There must be a correlation between the BANCers inability to actually bank, since what was once a federal surplus under Clinton is now a deficit under a Bush. How odd! We'll touch on this a bit more...

But to the point, the BANCers don't see what really happens in the world around them, but rather they believe what they want to believe, and that is the world they live in. This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Just like these BANCers believe that cutting taxes for the rich will result in more money for the poor, the things they believe about the world are the things that will come true in their minds. The reality is these things are not going to happen just by believing. It may help explain why so many of these red-state BANCers are also people of such unwaivering faith. Think about it, when reality ceases to provide answers where does one turn? God, of course. Believe, believe, believe. It helps that God cannot be proven. These provides great cover for the BANCers.

Sidenote: If it's easy, they do it.

The belief issue is also in the ghettos of America as well, but for different reasons. The believers in the ghettos believe because they really have no other choice. The BANCers will always keep them down, so believing is a way of getting through the tough hands many have been dealt. Ironically, the BANCers are actually helping the current leadership misguide us through the world, which will result in pain for themselves. Good times all around.

I started thinking about this in my car, overlooking the parts of New Jersey that force you to think about the environment. The BANCers will never blame America at a time when we have enemies. Regardless of the issue, whether it be free trade, the environment, terrorism, you name it, the BANCers will never blame America when their guy is running the show. The "enemy" is the simple response by the BANCers to almost any issue. When a conflicting opinion arises the BANCers view that as an opinion of the enemy. It's simple for them, the way they like it.

The issue of global warming is a tricky one. Scientists are not convinced of its effects, but intelligent people desire more and more research to find out the very causes. The BANCers, on the other hand, conduct investigations into American research because the issue is not one the BANCers suppport. Instead of figuring out a problem, and changing their tune, they subvert the process. It's truly disgusting, although not surprising. BANCer leadership lives for today only.

Because the leadership of the BANCers is supported by the biggest polluters in the world these people will undermine science, and reality, at all costs. While this will certainly be detrimental to the country's future these people find solace in prayer, hence why they "believe" so much, and can more easily shove aside "reality." It sounds crazy, but that's the truth of it.

If you take the liberals in America, we'll call them the Blame America Firsters, since that's what the BANCers call them, they see things differently. If the liberals in America, especially the economists, saw that cutting taxes for the rich actually did create wealth and stability for the working class, they'd be ALL FOR IT. They see things as they really are. They know this isn't true, so they don't support such a tax policy. Now sure, a liberal can see the particular benefits of cutting taxes, and trickle-down economics, as a conservative might explain it, but those models only exist in vaccums, and we don't live in one. We live in one with offshoring labor, tax loopholes, tax shelters, and deceptive CEOs.

BAFer Liberals take responsibility for things they don't necessarily have to be responsible for. This is why the BAFers call into question what happens in Guantanamo, because they know the policies could have a detrimental effect on America in the future. These people are concerned about people who don't yet exist, or those who are too young to decide. It shouldn't surprise anyone because the BAFers are always asking for more aid for America's poorest, and for the neediest around the world. They care for people they don't necessarily have to care about. I guess they were just raised better, who knows?

This is why the name BAFers came about to begin with: the BANCers hate the fact the BAFers care. It makes them look bad. What do the BANCers do? They come up with cute little slogans and names to smear the BAFers. The BANCer leadership deceives their own legions of BANCers when they do this, since the general BANCer never really sees and hears what's going on in he world. However, a true BANCer doesn't care about his own, the same way he/she doesn't care about others. Party of the Self. The BANCers get lodas of cash from big business and individuals to make sure the BAFers never really get their message out there. That's the game. Seriously, good times.

With regard to the environment, we're at a time of war. The legions of BANCers are not going to take global warming seriously, or any issue for that matter. Right now it's US vs Them. You're either with us, or against us, on every single issue. If the Europeans think Global Warming is a problem, well, then we don't. If there are those who believe the treatment of POWs at Guantanamo is wrong, well, the BANCers think it's right. If there are those who believe the Iraq War was a mistake, well, the BANCers think it was right. If the BANC President, the first CEO President, said the Iraq War was a mistake, the BANCers would agree, of course. But they will not disagree with the BANC President, if not solely because the "Them" crowd thinks otherwise.

You can apply this to every issue when it comes to the BANCers. Facts and reality do not matter, which is why on every single policy the BANCers line up behind their leadership, no matter what. It's not about being right in an actual sense, but being right in the sense where you can win a political battle even if the battle leads to negative results, which is basically the case with almost all the current policies. Winning is what matters, not winning for what's right.

Please, be done with asking yourself, "How can they be so stupid?" This is how. It's not stupidity as much as it is denial, subserviance, and selfishness with ready-made excuses at the tips of their tongues, provided, of course, but BANCer leadership. Of course, it's a lot of fucking stupidity too.

Not understanding consequences for the sake of the current is probably the dumbest way a society can live, and America has never seen a group as dumb as these BANCers.

The Election in Iraq

Is Seymour Hersh the only serious reporter in the world?

Whatever happened to us being "welcomed as liberators?"

Print it out. Read it.

Just to be Clear

These are the types of people making the world a more difficult place for all. From the Wall Street Journal:

Even by Wall Street's over-the-top standards, the March 2003 bachelor party for Thomas Bruderman, a onetime star trader for Fidelity Investments, was an event to remember.

The festivities began with a trip by private jet from Boston to a small airport outside New York City. There, the revelers picked up some Wall Street traders and at least two women who investigators suspect may have been paid for their attendance, say people familiar with the matter. The partygoers -- including the groom-to-be, who was getting ready to marry the daughter of former Tyco International Ltd. boss L. Dennis Kozlowski -- then continued to trendy South Beach in Miami. The fun included a stay at the ritzy Delano Hotel for some, a yacht cruise and entertainment by at least one dwarf hired for the occasion.

"Some people are just into lavish dwarf entertainment," says the 4-foot-2 Danny Black, a part-owner in Shortdwarf.com, an outfit that rents dwarfs for parties starting at $149 an hour. Mr. Black says he spent part of the weekend on the yacht and worked as a waiter on the Friday night at a high-end Miami eatery alongside what he called "regular size" people. "A good time was had by all," he said, declining to provide further details.

But what really made this a memorable party is that it is now a focus of an investigation into possibly improper gratuities from Wall Street trading firms eager to get Fidelity's business. The National Association of Securities Dealers and the Securities and Exchange Commission are examining which Wall Street firms kicked in money for the weekend party. So far, at least three firms have been embroiled in the investigation. Jefferies Group Inc. paid for the plane, SG Cowen & Co. paid for the yacht, and Lazard Capital Markets paid for some of the hotel rooms, according to people familiar with the matter.

Good times were had! Tax cuts are necessary so these things can go on at least one more time a year.

An Important Opinion

When should we worry?

America's Truth Deficit
By WILLIAM GREIDER
Washington

DURING the cold war, as the Soviet economic system slowly unraveled, internal reform was impossible because highly placed officials who recognized the systemic disorders could not talk about them honestly. The United States is now in an equivalent predicament. Its weakening position in the global trading system is obvious and ominous, yet leaders in politics, business, finance and the news media are not willing to discuss candidly what is happening and why. Instead, they recycle the usual bromides about the benefits of free trade and assurances that everything will work out for the best.

Much like Soviet leaders, the American establishment is enthralled by utopian convictions - the market orthodoxy of free trade globalization. The United States is heading for yet another record trade deficit in 2005, possibly 25 percent larger than last year's. Our economy's international debt position - accumulated from many years of tolerating larger and larger trade deficits - began compounding ferociously in the last five years. Our net foreign indebtedness is now more than 25 percent of gross domestic product and at the current pace will reach 50 percent in four or five years .

For years, elite opinion dismissed the buildup of foreign indebtedness as a trivial issue. Now that it is too large to deny, they concede the trend is "unsustainable." That's an economist's euphemism which means: things cannot go on like this, not without ugly consequences for American living standards. But why alarm the public? The authorities assure us timely policy adjustments will fix the matter.

Reporters and editors typically take cues from the same influential sources and learned experts in business, finance and government. If the news media decided to cast these facts as the story of the world's only superpower losing ground in global competition and becoming financially dependent on strategic rivals like China, the public would take greater notice. But governing elites would regard such clarity as inflammatory. America's awesome trade problem is instead portrayed as something else - an esoteric technical dispute about currency values, the dollar versus the Chinese yuan. The context is guaranteed to baffle and benumb citizens.

The possibility that the United States can no longer afford globalization, at least not as it now functions, is what opinion leaders do not wish to discuss. A few brave dissenters have stated the matter plainly and called for significant policy shifts to stop the hemorrhaging. Warren Buffett, the legendary investor, says the United States is destined to become not an "ownership society," but a "sharecropper society." But his analysis, and others like it, are brushed aside.

An authentic debate might start by asking heretical questions: Why is the United States one of the few advanced economies that suffers from perennial trade deficits? Why do new trade agreements, despite official promises, always leave the United States with a deeper deficit hole, with another wave of jobs moving overseas? How do the authorities explain the 30-year stagnation of working-class wages that is peculiar to America? Are we supposed to believe that everyone else is simply more competitive or slyly breaking the rules? In the last three decades, American policymakers have succeeded in closing the trade gap with only one event - a recession.

The American predicament is shaped by operating dynamics grounded in the global system, singularly embraced by Washington because Washington originated most of them. At the outset, these practices were both virtuous and self-interested for the United States - encouraging industrialization in poor countries, binding cold war allies together with trade and investment, furthering the global advance of American business and finance. With its wide-open market, America played - and still plays - buyer of last resort for world exports. Its leading companies and banks gained access to developing new markets, often by sharing jobs, production and technology with others. American policymakers also got to run the world.

The utopian expectations behind this arrangement turned out to be wrong, judging by empirical evidence rather than theory. But why wrong? American political debate is enveloped by the ideology of free trade, but "free trade" does not actually describe the global economic system. A more accurate description would be "managed trade" - a dense web of bargaining and deal-making among governments and multinational corporations, all with self-interested objectives that the marketplace doesn't determine or deliver. Every sovereign nation, the United States included, uses its vast arsenal of policies to pursue its national interest.

But on the crucial question of how policy makers define "national interest," Washington stands alone. Western Europe, whatever its problems, manages economic policy to maintain modest trade surpluses. Japan manages to insure far larger surpluses in recessions (its export income subsidizes inefficient domestic employers). China strives to acquire a larger, more advanced industrial base at the expense of worker incomes and bank profits. Germany and Japan, despite vast differences, both manage to keep advanced manufacturing sectors anchored at home and to defend domestic wage levels and social guarantees. When they do disperse production and jobs overseas, as they must, they do so strategically.

By contrast, Washington defines "national interest" primarily in terms of advancing the global reach of our multinational enterprises. Elites are persuaded by the reigning orthodoxy that subsidiary domestic interests will ultimately benefit too. The distinctive power of America's globalized companies is reflected in trade patterns. Nearly half of American exports and imports are not traded in open markets - the price auction idealized by neoclassical economics - but within the companies themselves, moving materials and components back and forth among their far-flung factories. A trade deficit does not show on the company's balance sheet, only on the nation's. In recent years, much of the trade deficit has reflected the value-added production and jobs that companies moved elsewhere.

The United States is thus especially vulnerable to the downward pressures on working-class wages that exist on both ends of the global system. American producers are generally free - and even encouraged by Washington - to shift production to low-wage locations. Companies regularly use this cost-cutting technique as a competitive weapon without regard to the domestic consequences. The practice works for companies and investors, but not so well for a nation.

INDEED, the cumulative effects of retarding labor incomes worldwide repeatedly threatens stagnation or worse for the entire system. Workers, to put it crudely, cannot buy what the world can make. Too much capital leads to the speculative "bubbles" that bounce around the world, visiting financial crisis on rich and poor alike.

At a different moment in history, American leadership might have stepped up to these disorders and led the way to solutions. If globalization is to continue without encountering more crisis and random destruction, governments must together shift the balance of power so labor incomes can rise in step with rising productivity and profits. If the United States is to avert its own reckoning, it must take decisive action to draw firm limits on its exposure to trade deficits, that is, resign its position as the open-armed buyer of last resort. In effect, Washington would also reform its own national interest imperatives so that they more closely resemble what other nations already embrace. Ultimately, American remedial action may protect the global system from its own crisis - the moment when trading partners discover they have just lost their best customer.

But to describe plausible remedies is to explain why none are likely. The webs of mutual interests connecting government, corporate boardrooms and Wall Street are too deeply woven, as are habits of thought among policy makers and politicians. So I do not expect anything fundamental will be altered in time. We are going to find out if the dissenters are right.

Of course, the people who are causing these problems don't care about solutions since they don't see solutions as probable. They live in the world of dog eat dog; make as much as you can while you're on this planet.

The problems arising worldwide are problems for a different generation. Sure, they have kids, and they supposedly care about their futures, but in reality the only way these people know how to help their children is to leave them cash and get them educated. If they do that they'll consider their job "done."

To think about the negative effects being reigned down on the world by the top dogs of American capitalism would be too painful for these folks. Best to ignore it, continue dog eat dog, and hopefully never be blamed.

Tie all this in with privatizing Social Security. Banks earn fees, and average Joe/Jane earns risks and less benefits.

It's never enough for most of these people. There are the Buffets, Corzines, and Turners of the world, but too few for sure.

President Clinton was perfect for dealing with the problems of a new economy. These current idiots are not. They're the types of people causing the problems. They are the greed.

Lets hope someone comes along and is strong enough to rally the nation around the truths we're going to face economically.

Little Enviro-wondering

I remember hearing Sean Hannity laugh how Gore was going to discuss Global Warming on the "coldest day of the year..." Ha! Funny ha ha! What if he gave it today, would it make a difference? It's cold out across the country, right? Good thing no one is getting ravaged by hurricanes, right? Ha! Funny ha ha!

For those who don't know, Global Warming causes extreme temperatures on both ends. Ha! Funny ha ha.

Sticking with this point, you'd think a Bush appointee could feign concern for the environment when discussing the issues. But no, that'd be asking too much. This the response last week to a court ruling on Global Warming:

"We are pleased with this ruling and glad the court supported our decision," EPA press secretary Eryn Witcher said. She said voluntary programs were better ways to reduce carbon and greenhouse gases than "mandatory regulations and litigation that don't promote economic growth."

Yes, voluntary! Sorta like those volunteer programs not to commit fraud over at Westar, Enron, WorldCom, Sprint, Adelphia, and the rest. When corporate MEN are given the option they always choose the one benefitting the public, and not the bottom line.

Amazing, the press secretary of the EPA making sure nothing harms economic growth.

Hey, I'm all for growth, but can you please, for the sake of the environment's psyche, pretend you care about the environment? PLEASE!

But fear not, there is squabbling inside the party:

House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.) has demanded that another senior Republican, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton (Tex.), call off his investigation of three scientists who have charted Earth's rapid warming in recent decades.

The unusual public tiff between two powerful GOP lawmakers highlights the sharp divide that drives the nation's climate change debate. Barton, along with President Bush and many other House Republicans, opposes mandatory curbs on greenhouse gas emissions and questions the science underlying such efforts. Boehlert, who backs limits on carbon dioxide pollution, said he fears such attacks could chill future scientific inquiry.

In a sharply worded letter sent last week, Boehlert called Barton's probe into the findings of Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley and Malcolm K. Hughes a "misguided and illegitimate investigation." Mann will direct the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University as of next month, Bradley is a geosciences professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and Hughes is a professor at the University of Arizona's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.

Using climate records culled from tree rings, glacial-ice layers and coral-growth layers, the three professors -- whose research was funded in part by the federal government -- determined in 1998 that temperatures have skyrocketed in the past century compared with the 500 years preceding it. The three men put the figures in a graph now known as the "hockey stick," and their work helped prompt the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001 to declare the 1990s as the warmest decade in the past 1,000 years.

Barton began investigating Mann and his colleagues late last month, asking them to justify their work with documents from hundreds of studies. Noting that two Canadian researchers had questioned their findings, Barton wrote that he had opened "this review because this dispute surrounding your studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely."

Go Sherry, it's your birthday.

Gotta love it when conservatives start using the research done by Canadiens. That's comedy.

Attacking the findings of US Scientists in order to make sure future federal dollars are not spent looking into the issue of global warming. Now doesnt' that make you feel all fuzzy? And warm?

Nice country.

Gotta trust Rep. Boehlert. Afterall, he had my boy working for him!

Those Smaller Courts

I came across this on Saturday:

A federal appeals court ruled unanimously on Friday that the military could resume war crimes trials of terrorism suspects at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which were suspended last year.

The decision, by a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, reversed a lower court's ruling that abruptly halted the first war crimes trials conducted by the United States since the aftermath of World War II. The appeals judges said the Bush administration's plan to try some detainees before military commissions did not violate the Constitution, international law or American military law.

Their ruling, in the case of Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a driver for Osama bin Laden, was a significant legal victory for the administration, which has found itself engaged in several court battles over tools that officials say they need to fight terrorist groups.

"The president's authority under the laws of our nation to try enemy combatants is a vital part of the global war on terror," Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales said on Friday, "and today's decision reaffirms this critical authority."

Neal K. Katyal, a Georgetown University law professor who represented Mr. Hamdan, said he would consider an appeal.

"Today's ruling," Mr. Katyal said, "places absolute trust in the president, unchecked by the Constitution, statutes of Congress and longstanding treaties ratified by the Senate of the United States."

He noted that many retired senior officers who had signed a brief supporting his position maintained that the way detainees at Guantánamo had been treated imperiled American troops who might themselves be captured on the battlefield.

The ruling is interesting because it's unanimous, but even more interesting when you check the makeup of the judges:

The three judges who issued the ruling were all nominated to the bench by Republican presidents. Judge Randolph, chosen by the first President Bush, was joined in the decision by Judges John Roberts, nominated by the current president, and Stephen F. Williams, by President Ronald Reagan. Judge Robertson, of the lower court, was nominated by President Bill Clinton.

This court overturned Judge Robertson's decision.

Judge Roberts is a likely candidate to be nominated to the Supreme Court this week.

Taking this a step further, there was also an EPA ruling last week:

A federal appeals court rejected on Friday an effort by a dozen states and cities, along with environmental groups, to have the Bush administration regulate greenhouse gases that spill out of the tailpipes of new cars and trucks.

A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the federal Environmental Protection Agency had the administrative discretion to decide, in 2003, not to order reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles, as the states sought.

The decision - the most authoritative court ruling on the issue so far - lessens the likelihood that there will be any national programs to control greenhouse gas emissions anytime soon. However, Judge A. Raymond Randolph, writing for the panel, and Judge David B. Sentelle, who disagreed with Judge Randolph on some of the issues in the case, did not directly address the agency's contention that it had not been given authority under the federal Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.

Judge Randolph was appointed by the first Bush, and Sentelle by Ronald Reagan. Sentelle is a member of the Federalist Society, and replaced Scalia on the Court of Appeals.

The dissenting opinion in this case came from Judge David Tatel, appointed by President Clinton.

So while under this ruling the US will be able to ignore doing anything about greenhouse gases because of Republican appointees, the Clinton appointee makes it possible for their to be an appeal, or future case.

These "smaller courts" are the things most Americans pay not attention to, and hardcore conservatives pay every bit to.

Balance

Of the 9 Supreme Court justices, 7 were appointed by Republicans.

Of course, this isn't good enough for whacked America. It needs to be more. 9 out of 9, with at least 6 being hard right. That's the balance America needs, right? Especially in a country where the vote is practically dead even, and the likelihood is there are more voters on the Democrat side.

What was once the left doesn't exist. The middle of the 70s and 80s is now the left. The right of that era is now the middle, and we know what the right of today has become and is becoming.

Good times.

The Paper of Record

Aka, The New York Times, just doesn't get it sometimes. Or, maybe they "get it" too much.

There's an article about a teenager named Zach who is gay, and who will be attending a religious-type school to convert him. Obviously, the whole thing is fucking retarded, but it is what it is.

My problem isn't with the article as much as it is with the placement of the article. The article is on the front page of the SUNDAY STYLES section!

Now I would assume the readers of the Style/Fashion section are sympathetic to gays, and equal rights causes in general, but this is not the place for such an article.

The article doesn't take sides, but you can assume the readers will. This is clearly a topic that has nothing to do with 'style', but by placing it in this section the Times is almost making the case that being gay is, afterall, a style! Certainly, gay people have made their mark on style in general, but by placing the article here the paper makes it seem like 'gay' IS a choice.

The Times shouldn't be doing this just to get the attention of as many readers as possible. I know they're a business, but I've always believed the news came first. At least I hoped that was the case. This article should be on the frontpage of the main section, or the National News section, not the Style Section.

The Times corrected a similar error by placing Frank Rich's columns back on the Op/Ed page where they belong. For a while Rich's (great) columns were plastering the front of the Sunday Arts section. Rich would do a great job of tying modern Art, whether it was tv, radio, literature, etc. into his columns, but it was clear what the purpose of his columns were. My friend John commented to me that, "It's great they're running Rich's columns in the Arts section so more people will see them..." Yes, that's true, but once it became clear Rich was not focussing on art he landed back on the Op/Ed page where he belongs.

They need to keep their heads on straight.