Truth be told, I’m not a fan of Al Sharpton, and never really was since I fist heard of him in relation to the Tawana Brawley case. Some liberals and some libertarians seem to like him, say that he’s good at bringing up topics that should be brought up, and/or see him as a constructive spoiler in political campaigns and debates. I don’t see that myself. I don’t dislike the guy that much, but I’m certainly no follower, and have little reason to defend the guy.

And if I thought that Sharpton really had said something to the effect that Romney or Mormons in general did not “really believe in God,” I would be alongside the people condemning him for the remark. I certainly do not feel that Christians are always respectful of people with differing beliefs, and would have little trouble believing that one mainstream Christian said that about a Mormon. In fact, I think Romney’s biggest obstacle in this election will be the fact that the majority of Republican voters tend to be strongly non-Mormon Christians.

If Sharpton had a history of bigoted statements, towards Mormons or any other religious group, I would also be suspicious of what he said recently.

The thing is, I don’t think the claim holds up that Sharpton was talking about Mormons.

Sharpton said: “…and as for the one Mormon running for office, those who really believe in God will defeat him anyways, so don’t worry about that; that’s a temporary situation.”

Out of context, it certainly sounds like Sharpton was saying that Romney and/or Mormons don’t believe in God. However, context is everything. Sharpton was debating an atheist, and it is absolutely believable that Sharpton was telling Hitchens–the atheist–that people who really believe in God as opposed to atheists would defeat Romney. Not people who believe in God as opposed to Mormons.

Now, especially out of context, the statement could be taken either way; the thing is, in the context of a debate with an atheist, it makes far more sense that Sharpton was talking about atheists being the ones who don’t really believe in God–else one would have to believe that Sharpton has suddenly turned into a massive anti-Mormon bigot with no history to suggest that.

The thing is, most stories I am seeing so far in the media don’t even mention that he was debating an atheist. Take this one, an ABC affiliate. Yes, it’s in Mormon country, but even then, to exclude the entire context of debate with an atheist is equivalent to outright lying. And of course, conservative blogs, Fox News, and the Romney campaign have started running with the story and are busily establishing their version of events. Lou Dobbs had Hitchens on, but again, showed only the clipped statement–even muted the audio of the previous statement in showing the clip–and then had his debate opponent comment on it, which he did as a means of expressing disdain for religious groups.

Like Gore’s statement about “taking the initiative in creating the Internet,” or Bill Clinton’s “I didn’t inhale” statement, there are two ways to read it–the way that makes perfect sense in context, and the way that makes the speaker sound like an utter buffoon. This is the same situation: taking the statement in the context of a debate with an atheist, Sharpton was almost certainly not dissing Mormons. But if you want to make it sound sensational, it is very easy to spin the statement the other way.

But I have noticed another problem: nobody is providing the context of the whole dialog between Sharpton and Hitchens. I have looked solidly on Google, both in news and on web sites, and not a single one of them show (a) the statement that Sharpton was responding to–incredibly vital in order to understand the nature of his reply–nor did they (b) even include all of Sharpton’s statement. They cut in with Sharpton saying “…and as the one Mormon…” and many of the quotes dishonestly cut out the “and,” leave no ellipses to show that it was a continuation of a prior utterance, improperly capitalize the start of the second clause of his statement, and do not show what came before.

This is incredibly dishonest, and inexcusable that news outlets–supposedly objective–should cut it like that. For all I know, the words before that statement were exculpatory, or even more damning. But leaving them out–and in many cases, acting like they didn’t exist–makes it impossible to understand fully. It certainly makes it seem even more like Sharpton was indeed saying something else, but that including the prior utterance would lessen the sensational impact of the story. All that I can say is that within the context of debating an atheist, what has been quoted so far makes perfect sense–albeit awkward wording–in the way Sharpton is still insisting that he meant it.

Like I said, I have no great love for Sharpton, and if the full story indeed shows he was making a bigoted statement against Mormons, I’ll be right up there condemning him. But with the facts that are out now, that does not seem to be the case, and with the full context still being held back, that’s the only honest way of reading it.

I am also somewhat disappointed that, at least so far, the major liberal blogs are completely ignoring the matter. Perhaps they are waiting for a full transcript, perhaps they just don’t want to touch it. But it seems to me that what has been shown so far is enough to make the point I myself have made.

If anyone can point me to a transcript of the debate with the full Sharpton quote and the statements preceding it, I would appreciate the heads-up.

It really is fascinating, as well as disturbing, to see how conservatives idolize Ronald Reagan. The man did fit the profile of what conservatives today value: image over substance. When it comes down to it, that’s what he was all about. He was the Great Communicator–an apt designation, because as a president, he did not really achieve that much, but he talked a sweet deal. And that’s why he’s popular among the conservative crowd–because he made them feel good. That, apparently, is all that matters. So long as you can believe something nice, it doesn’t matter what is actually being done.

Reagan’s greatest “accomplishments” were not much more than bystander moments. The economy did not grow because of Reagan any more than it did because of Clinton–yet conservatives bend over backwards to give credit to Reagan while denying it to Clinton. There is muted embarrassment that Clinton’s boom was bigger and more sustained than Reagan’s, something they simply ignore as best they can. Just as they ignore that inequality shrank during the Clinton boom while it expanded during the Reagan boom–one of the elements of a boom that a president can influence, through tax and other policies.

And then there was the fall of communism, which conservatives will soulfully remind you was mostly due to the efforts of Ronald Reagan. Forget all the presidents before him and the bulk of the Cold War. Forget Mikhail Gorbachev, Forget Boris Yeltsin. And hey, forget the fact that Soviet economic policies and corruption corroded the Soviet Union until it collapsed under its own weight. Nope, it was all because Saint Ronnie spent tens of billions extra each year on Defense and glowered the Soviet Union into collapsing. Without Reagan, the Soviet Union would still be going strong today, right?

True character is observed through actions, not by photo ops or good delivery of well-written lines. Reagan’s character coalesced before me in 1983, when 241 American servicemen died when a suicide bomber hit their barracks with more than five tons of explosives. When reporters began questioning the administration’s and Reagan’s own responsibility for allowing the attack to happen–for not having an exit strategy, which left the troops in an untenable position–Reagan reacted in a way that revealed his character how it mattered. He used the deaths of the troops as a political shield. He accused the reporters of saying that the troops died in vain. It did the trick; the reporters recoiled and shut up. Reagan’s image was preserved. But his character, his true character, showed if only for a brief moment. An honest man, a brave man, a man who honors and respects those who served (Reagan never did), that man would sooner resign than to use the honorable deaths of 241 soldiers to cover his own culpability in causing their deaths. These are the kinds of moments that define people: what price you are willing to pay for doing the right thing. Reagan wasn’t willing.

Let’s not forget where Reagan was earlier in life. In the era of McCarthyism, Reagan was on McCarthy’s side, favoring the blacklists and helping the House Un-American Activities Committee as a friendly witness. And when it came to facing the witch hunt, when it came to naming names, Reagan folded. The same year that Reagan took on the duties of president of the Screen Actor’s Guild, a position in which he was supposed to be protecting his fellow actors, he was busy secretly naming his colleagues and putting them on blacklists, causing them to be grilled by the HUAC, killing their careers. (However, he did take one person’s name off the blacklist: Nancy Davis, whom he later married. Make of that what you will.) He later bragged, “We are just a few of the many loyal Americans in Hollywood who have helped to bring about the complete frustration and failure of the Communist Party in the motion picture industry.” And then, in 1980, when running for president, he had the gall to claim that “there was no such thing as a blacklist in Hollywood.”

You can be weak, you can be selfish, you can be petty. But the telling actions of Ronald Reagan showed what he truly was. And while he may have been a Great Communicator, he was a Bad American. Worse, his sterling image has helped a generation of hardcore conservatives virtually dismantle so much of what has made this country great, and fostered a mindset in right-wing circles that has helped destroy the very principles people believed Reagan upheld.

A few months ago, Time Magazine ran a cover which had Reagan shedding a tear because of what the Republican Party has become. The truth, however, is that Reagan, intentionally or not, planted the seed for what has become of the GOP. Shadow government, impulsive spending and out-of-control deficits, class warfare, reckless interventionism, doublespeak, runaway executive power–today’s conservative government is founded upon what Reagan started. To suggest that it would sadden Reagan is contemptuous of the record. This is the House that Reagan Built. This is his legacy. And it matches well with what his true character was.

There is a certain level of schizophrenia involved in conservative views about race, especially in light of the candidacy of Barack Obama. While he is delighting massive crowds of liberals and independents–and even some conservatives–the far right wing is going apoplectic over the whole affair. Wingnuts scramble to find racism in liberals’ appreciation of Obama, at the same time that they strain to see disapproval from the mainstream African-American community.

For the Far Right, everything about Obama is about race. The same voices that claim they envision a color-blind society (by essentially ignoring the racism that exists and allowing it to run unchecked) are the same ones who see nothing but race where Obama is involved–but in classic projection, they claim that it’s the liberals who are obsessed with race. Obama isn’t white enough, he’s not black enough, he’s a way for liberals to assuage their racial guilt; apparently, Obama’s popular only because he biracial, but at the same time, liberals don’t like him because he’s biracial. It’s a confusing barrage of half-baked excuses to make Obama be all about race, while in the background, the standard-bearer for the Far Right, Rush Limbaugh, continues the “color blind” drumbeat by playing and re-playing the racist melody, “Barack the Magic Negro.”

The real irony here is that people who like Obama are the actual ones who are color-blind. They’re the ones who have listened to him speak, have appreciated his charisma and the appeal of his personality, the power of his speaking style and strong talent for communication. It’s not because he’s black, any more than it was because Bill Clinton was white. Obama appeals to people because of who he is.

But here’s how bad things have become on the flipside: a major news network has been forced to completely disable comments from site visitors for stories about Barack Obama. The reason: persistent, voluminous racial epithets–so many, that CBS can’t keep up with them and eliminate them on a one-by-one basis.

So, who is posting these comments? His liberal fans? Umm, not too likely. No, it is probably the “color blind” right-wingers, the ones who don’t “see race,” and who accuse the liberals of rampant racism where Obama is involved. The attacks and threats have become so bad that Obama has been given Secret Service protection earlier than any other candidate in history.

Just look at the right wing’s criticisms of Obama. Try to find one that isn’t somehow connected to race, or act in some way to make his race or ethnicity an issue. You’ll have a hard time doing so. This might be because there’s just not that much about Obama that they can attack. But personally, I think it goes deeper than that. It’s more about the far right’s inability to handle the idea of a liberal man of color taking power, so they focus on that–in a similar fashion that they have always responded to Hillary Clinton’s being a woman.

It’s not pretty, but it is what’s there.

Greed: Some say that we went to Iraq to steal the oil; I don’t know who’s getting what money, so I can’t address that. I always assumed that a bigger aim was not to take the oil revenues, but rather to control the output, so as to control world prices. But here’s another thought: a war in Iraq–especially a long war, what Bush has pushed for and keeps on pushing for–in addition to instability in the Middle East–which Bush has certainly caused, without question–all provides for the perfect excuse to jack up gas prices at the pump far beyond reason. Maybe it’s not just stealing or even controlling the oil. Maybe it’s about creating the pretext for overcharging for the oil.

Any way you look at it, the oil companies have got this covered in several directions. Not the least of which is an administration, run by two former oil company executives, who have fought for and won billions in tax breaks for the oil companies, which are making historic profits.

But surely, I am an conspiracy theorist.

Well, I got an unusual chance yesterday–to see a movie here in Japan at about the same time it starts showing in the U.S.–in fact, the public sneak previews started even earlier here, but I wanted to go see the film with Sachi. We were able to get good seats because I had visited the theater the day before and got seat assignments–something which only Toho and Warner/Mycal theaters let you do in Japan without extra charge, I think. Strangely, although you can buy your tickets online from those places, they won’t let you get a specific seat–they only allow you to choose a general section of the theater.

In any case, the movie. Super-short summary: not great, but a fair action flick. Slightly longer review: in order to watch this movie, make sure you have set your critical faculties aside and are in full disbelief-suspension mode–even for a fantasy-villain super-hero movie. That goes not just for the mode of how villains are created, but also for personal interactions between the characters. It’s kind of like an incredibly well-budgeted special-effects extravaganza written by someone who couldn’t figure out how to get from A to C so they kind of fudged on B all the time. You start at scene A, which is good, and you arrive at the payoff scene C, which is better; but scene B leaves you shaking your head.

Another problem with the film is villain overload. There are three villains in the movie–or four, depending on how you count them. Hell, even five, in a sense. They do wrap things up fairly (though not perfectly) neatly at the end, but at times you get a bit tired of yet another villain arriving to molest Spidey. It also seems to be an increasing trend: in the first Spiderman, there was one villain; in the second, two. God knows what they have planned for a potential fourth film.

Another quality this film picked up from the second film in the series is the drag-them-down-to-bring-them-up technique of storytelling, except this time they applied it to both Peter Parker and MJ. As the film starts, MJ has a starring role in a broadway musical, and Peter is madly in love with her, getting ready to propose. So, you know things are going to disintegrate. And, of course, that at some point, MJ will be grabbed by the villains and Peter/Spidey will have to rescue her. Don’t worry, I am not giving anything away here, just like I would not be giving anything away to say that in Die Hard 4, there will be highly improbable car chases, stunts, and explosions. It’s established formula by now.

Once you get past all of that, there is some good movie there. As usual for the Spiderman series, the human element of the story is pretty strongly emphasized–the relationships between characters, and the principles of morality involved. But let’s face it: when you go to see a film like Spiderman 3, you go for the action and special effects. And there’s a fairly good amount of that in this film. The nature of the villains and their modes of transport assure it. The flying scenes between Spiderman and Harry or Venom tend to fly by so fast, with so much happening, that it’s almost impossible to take in what’s going on; they seemed to crank the speed of these up to the maximum, testing the limits. The Sandman effects were fairly impressive, and are probably where a fair amount of the $250 million budget went to–but in the end, you have to wonder if it was really necessary to spend that much to get this film.

If you’re into Spiderman or just enjoy super-hero action films, this’ll be worth watching. If not, then not so much; it might be good light fare, but you might want to wait for the film to reach a lower-priced venue to see it.

As I have noted before, American movies often premier late in Japan; Spiderman 3 is an exception. Here’s a list of upcoming movies and when they open. A few open within a few weeks of the US release, but more open more than a month later, with a few coming many months late:

Shrek the Third: USA, May 18; Japan, June 30
Pirates of the Caribbean 3: USA, May 19; Japan, May 25
Ocean’s 13: USA, June 8; Japan, August 11
Surf’s Up: USA, June 8; Japan, January 12, 2008
Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer: USA, June 15; Japan, September 29
Live Free or Die Hard: USA, June 27; Japan, August 4
Ratatouille: USA, June 29; Japan, July 28
Transformers: USA, July 4; Japan, August 4
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix: USA, July 13; Japan, July 21

As for films that were already released in the US, 300 comes out in Japan on June 9; Zodiac on June 16; and The Prestige (opened last October in the US), June 9.

The Simpsons Movie, set for a July 27 release in the U.S., doesn’t even have a release date for Japan. Neither does Rush Hour 3–which is rather odd, considering how popular Jackie Chan is here.

Remember how Republicans were all criticizing Democrats for not taking part in a debate hosted by Fox News? Remember how Democrats were supposed to be “afraid of journalists,” and were threatening the freedom of the press itself?

Get a load of this. When MSNBC–a network with a bevy of conservative pundit shows–hosted the Republican debate, and Keith Olbermann, a noted critic of the right wing, quarterbacked the coverage of that debate, it prompted protest from the Republican front-runner as well as other candidates:

The Giuliani campaign privately expressed its concern to NBC News about Olbermann’s role in the days leading up to last Thursday’s debate.

… MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said a Giuliani campaign representative had called NBC News to complain about Olbermann being part of the debate telecast following his commentary. Olbermann was not told about the protest until after he came off the air Thursday, he said.

Other GOP presidential campaigns have expressed concerns about Olbermann to NBC News, according to a New York political strategist who requested anonymity to protect his clients.

Isn’t that just precious? Here you have the Republicans blasting Democrats for not wanting to have their entire debate, moderators and all, hosted by a rabid right-wing propaganda outfit, but when Republicans have to deal with a debate hosted by a network with someone not even on the debate floor being a left-wing pundit, they all start whining.

Every single ounce of criticism against Dems for not wanting Fox News propagandists in every corner of their own debate just melted into slag. After Republicans protested about a left-winger commenting on their debate, how could they possibly criticize Dems for not wanting something ten times stronger? Maybe that’s why all the complaints made by the Republican campaigns were made privately.

I’d comment on the utter hypocrisy we’re seeing from the right wing here, but since it’s been established that such behavior is the status quo from that crowd, I guess it’d be pretty much redundant to do so.

From AmericaBlog:

Steny Hoyer and John Conyers just pulled a fast one on the GOP. The GOP has been refusing to support the hate crimes bill because it doesn’t include members of the US Armed Forces and senior citizens. Conyers just rose and basically said, okay, I’ll add them. The Republicans’ response? Uh, no.

The Republicans have been railing for days about how this legislation doesn’t cover our Armed Forces and senior citizens, and now that the Dems offer to put our Armed Forces and seniors in this legislation, the Republicans said no and affirmatively stopped the Democrats from doing it anyway.

That means the Republicans had no intent on helping our Armed Forces and seniors, on protecting them. It was just a stunt. The GOP leaders in Congress just got up and used our Armed Forces and seniors as political fodder when they had no intent on actually doing anything to help our Armed Forces and seniors.

Add seniors and troops to small businesses, the working stiff, minorities, and a number of other sympathetic groups that the GOP doesn’t give a rat’s ass about, but regularly uses as sham victims in order to ram their agenda through. They will rail at Democrats for “attacking” these groups whenever they need to protect their real patrons (the wealthy and powerful), but as soon as they’ve finished using whatever lot they can conveniently portray as being “hurt” as human shields, they’ll immediately turn around and stab them in the back.

Sometimes they don’t even get their stories straight and wind up simultaneously defending and attacking a group of faux victims. Witness George W. Bush, just a week or two ago, blasting Democrats for passing the Iraq funding bill which set a deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, saying it would delay troops’ return home, and that this was unacceptable. The very next day the Bush administration extended soldiers’ tour of duty from 12 months to 15 months. And ironically, the bill that Bush opposed would in fact result in more troops coming home earlier.

It is far easier to avoid disappointment by simply expecting the worst from today’s Republican Party.

Conservatives, as a general rule, believe that the ACLU is an unacceptably radical organization which helps criminals and promotes lawlessness, representing a scary liberal mentality of taking personal liberties much too far.

The same people also tend to see the NRA as a virtuous organization preserving the rights and freedoms our country was founded on, fighting for law-abiding citizens who only want to protect themselves.

The reality is, the NRA and the ACLU are far more similar than conservatives would like to believe. Both have essentially the same charter: to preserve the rights of the people. The difference is that the NRA focuses on a single right, while the ACLU focuses on virtually all rights. Simply put, the NRA is the ACLU for the Second Amendment.

Conservative critics of the ACLU focus on the fact that the ACLU will defend notorious and vile criminals, setting them free on the streets to harm the people, while the NRA does the opposite. But this is actually where the two organizations overlap. The greatest similarity between the two is that, in the pursuit of protecting the rights they wish to defend, they will take on the case for what are essentially vile and despicable people or things.

Case in point:

The National Rifle Association is urging the Bush administration to withdraw its support of a bill that would prohibit suspected terrorists from buying firearms.

Backed by the Justice Department, the measure would give the attorney general the discretion to block gun sales, licenses or permits to terror suspects.

Can you imagine how conservatives would react if the ACLU tried to protect the constitutional rights of terrorist suspects?

Actually, you don’t have to look too hard to find such opinions; they’re all over the web. A few examples… The American Daily:

… the ACLU is only concerned with protecting the civil rights of terrorists, against the American government, our intelligence community, Department of Defense and Justice Department, whom they allege; [sic] mistreat terrorists in an effort to stop the next 9/11…

The same publication regularly supports the NRA (for example), and at least so far has no comment on the NRA position on the anti-terrorism bill. Or how about this site, specifically created to fight against the ACLU:

The ACLU’s support of Islamic terrorists has become quite apparent over the past few years, why should this reminder come as a surprise to anyone? The ACLU is about destroying the spirit of the laws we have in place to convict and put away criminals to make America safe; and to prop the rights of NAMBLA, felons, drug dealers and murderers – not to mention the fascists that want to attack us of the Islamic variety.

The same site has little to say about the NRA but is generally supportive of it and is against gun control. They also have no comment on the recent NRA stand, and probably won’t.

When it comes down to it, the ACLU and the NRA are the same where the criticism is heaviest: both will defend the despicable in the pursuit of their cause. The ACLU will defend murderers, terrorists, rapists and so on if there is an issue of constitutional rights at stake; the NRA will defend the same, as well as free access to things like armor-penetrating ammunition or weapons made specifically for sale to criminals, if it means protecting what they see as any deviation from their interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Both also tend to share a basic strategy: if they see a move by the government or the justice system which, however small or insignificant in and of itself, might set the stage for further erosion of a right or freedom, they take it on in a pre-emptive fight.

It should be noted that the ACLU does have somewhat of a blind spot where the NRA stands out; while the ACLU will go all-out to defend virtually all rights, they are uncharacteristically moderate when it comes to gun rights. Here is their stand on the issue, but essentially they support the right to keep and bear arms but see no reason why guns, like automobiles, should not be licensed and registered.

It should also be noted that the ACLU tends to limit its fight to court actions and press releases; it does not propagandize like the NRA does, and it does not even come close to the egregious tendencies of the NRA to distort and aggrandize.

But in principle, the two are joined at the hip.

This is rich. After playing an incredibly politicized role in replacing US Attorneys who refused to respond to political pressure to abuse justice for partisan purposes, Monica Goodling is now being investigated by the Justice Department. Contrary to what we believed in the beginning (that she was simply involved in corrupt and highly unethical political behavior, but not illegally so), Goodling actually may have broken the law, at least in that she may have used party affiliation to screen candidates for career federal prosecutors. Who knows what else she may have been up to.

But the investigation into her actions has her own attorney fired up:

What disturbs us most is that the Department chose to make its announcement about Ms. Goodling in the midst of Congress’s ongoing investigation into the Department’s affairs, and less than two weeks after the House Judiciary Committee passed a resolution authorizing the House General Counsel to apply for an order of immunity for Ms. Goodling. The timing of your release smacks of retribution and intimidation.

Yeah! How dare the Justice Department investigate Goodling for political purposes! That would be unprecedented!

The irony is beyond thick, it’s now achieved superdensity.

Naturally, it’s just legal positioning and posturing. Of course Goodling is apt to be investigated now, whether or not the DoJ is doing it to cover their own asses. This is when the facts about the goings-on are just coming to light; what other better time to start investigating–unless Goodling wants the administration and the DoJ to overlook whatever she did for old time’s sake?

But there may be a veiled message there. You see, Goodling may very well be jockeying for an Oliver North play: to get immunity from Congress before investigations show she’s done anything illegal, so that any later revelations about what she did could be dismissed from court under the argument that they arose from her protected testimony. With that kind of protection, Goodling could then take the blame for whatever came out.

It is puzzling, to a certain degree: why would the Bush administration do anything to throw such a process off course? Unless the investigation is mandatory or was started by officials who are not “loyal Bushies” and instead do their jobs properly, it doesn’t seem to make sense. After all, Goodling could damage this administration powerfully; why turn her against them?

One thing is for sure: Congress should take all precautions so as not to let Goodling pull an Ollie North. They should absolutely complete all possible investigations before thinking of granting any kind of immunity that could let Goodling sneak out of a loophole and get her associates a get-out-of-jail-free card as well.

The issue is covered at length in this article by Dan Froomkin.

So far, the Democrats are moving in the right direction, despite early signs of weakness and a media blitz that pushed Bush’s spin on the Iraq Withdrawal issue. Still, Reid and Pelosi made an excellent statement on the Bush veto (only his second veto in more than six years, by the way). The veto could not, of course be overriddeen. But so far, the Democratic leaders are going along the lines I guessed at, but the real test comes with what they do next.

So far, there are good signs: polls show that about 60% of the American people favor the Democratic plan, with only about 40% disapproving–which means the moderates and independents seem on the Democratic side. A similar number of people felt that the war was unwinnable Democratic Senator Jim Webb had a good take on it: “The question becomes, defeat by whom? Surrender to whom? We won this war four years ago. The question is when we end the occupation.”

It also seems like the Republican lines may be weakening–few will want to vote against withdrawal when it comes down to it, because the last thing they want is for the 2008 elections to be a second referendum on Iraq. They know they would take severe losses if that were the case. So now they are making noises about, at the very least, being the “bridge” between the Democrats and the president, helping effect a compromise. In the end game, however, any plan with a withdrawal date set into it–especially if it overrides a Bush veto–would be a huge victory for the Democratic Party.

However, there are signs that the Democrats might blink on a withdrawal date, instead settling for “benchmarks.” I think that would be a mistake, because (a) it would show weakness on the issue of actually ending the war, and (b) would have very little actual impact on reality if a withdrawal date were not coupled with the benchmarks.

I prefer Murtha’s plan of giving a two-month spending bill and then tying the withdrawal date to either the next Iraq funding bill, or tying it to Pentagon funding bill in May.

The people have made it clear that they want out of Iraq, and going wishy-washy with “benchmarks” seems like the wrong thing to do, even if it is the easy and perhaps the (immediately) politically expedient thing to do.

Forward-looking: What kind of ex-president will Bush be? Most become dignified statesmen after a fashion, and act in a conciliatory fashion with their political opponents. Clinton has taken this to heart almost too much. Bush 41 is dignified enough. Carter is as magnificent a former president as he was ill-equipped an acting president.

Somehow, I have quite a bit of trouble imagining a dignified former-president Bush 43. I sincerely doubt he’ll pull a Carter and turn out to be stellar after the fact. The question is most likely how he’ll manage to make a buffoon of himself. Sell himself to the highest bidder, but less slick than Reagan did? Snipe at and foul-mouth Democrats? Embarrass the nation by trying to be statesman and fouling things up? Or just make asinine statements on a regular basis?

One can only hope he’ll simply fade into obscurity. Somehow, however, I don’t think he will.

Enough. Abraham Lincoln said, “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.” Unfortunately, as we’ve witnessed over the past six years, “some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time” is more than enough to take the nation down the drain.

Here’s a Shocker: more Republican corruption with ties to the Bush family.

• A company called Moving Water Industries (MWI) won a $32 million contract to sell drainage pumps for use in New Orleans.
• The pumps have since proven to be defective.
• When bids for the project were taken, specifications were given. It turns out that those specs were copied from the MWI catalog, “typos and all,” as a way of ensuring that MWI got the contract.
• MWI used to employ now-Florida-governor Jeb Bush, and has strong ties to the Republican Party.

Surprise!

Yet another piece of evidence that the White House, and especially Condi Rice, had a great many significant warnings about 9/11 beforehand and ignored it. George Tenet, formerly willing to take the blame, now asserts that he had a briefing with Condi Rice in July 2001 where he told her that “There are going to be multiple, spectacular attacks against the United States. We believe these attacks are imminent,” and that “We need to consider immediate action inside Afghanistan now.”

Rice’s response: “I don’t know what we were supposed to pre-emptively strike in Afghanistan.”

Umm.. maybe, I dunno, Osama bin Laden? Remember how Bill Clinton tried to pre-emptively strike bin Laden in Afghanistan and was castigated by Republicans for it, who blamed him for trying to wag the dog and take attention away from more pressing matters like Monica Lewinsky?

Democrats may very well end up picking up even more House seats than expected next election, and probably Senate seats as well. Why? Well, partly because Democrats in Congress are doing notably well in the polls. But even more so because Republican have such a bad image that their party is more and more considered to be a “toxic climate.” Fewer people are willing to identify themselves as “Republicans,” and it doesn’t help that even after the 2006 drubbing, congressional Republicans are still supporting Bush with their voting records, and are still voting down highly popular measures such as the minimum wage hike, Medicare negotiation for drug prices, and an exit from the Iraq War.

This is probably best evidenced by the fact that the Republican Party is failing to get their top candidate picks for 2008 congressional races to sign on, and that Democrats are doing a better job fundraising than the GOP–a reversal of past trends.

Learned a new word: IOKIYAR. Acronym for: It’s OK If You’re A Republican. Referring, of course, to the common Republican double standard of condemning Democrats for certain things, but at the same time forgiving Republicans who do the exact same thing.

I agree–this is just creepy. Does Condi really feel this way about her husb–er, I mean, her president?

I have to admit, this one had me stumped. It’s the first time I have spotted a bird in Japan which is not in any of the Japanese bird guides I have. Actually, Sachi spotted it–we were taking a walk in the hills near my home station, via a local shrine. We heard a lot of Japanese Bush Warblers (aka Japanese Nightingales), Long-tailed Tits, and Meadow Buntings (but did not see any), and even did manage to spot a pair of Chinese Bamboo Partridges. But on the way down the many stairs leading to the shrine, Sachi saw a bird in the brush which then hopped along the stairs. I was able to follow it up the stairs and get a lot of photos–but because of the very low light, I was limited to mostly-blurry 1/15th-second exposures, and even then the exposures were dark. But even then, even with the tiny thumbnails on the camera’s display, I could see the markings around its eyes, and knew I had something unusual.

About two years ago, I was exploring a hilly path not too far from where we were today, and came across a birder who was excited about seeing some species that I had never heard about. Neither of us spotted the bird, but when I got back home, I looked it up, and noted the facial markings. That’s what I recognized today.

When I got home and got a better look at the photos, I looked through my field guides, and it wasn’t there. Not remembering the name I had been told a few years back, I did searches on the Internet for “bird white ring line eye China” (I recalled that it was a Chinese bird). Nothing came up. So I went to the Bird Forum, where there is a bird ID area; you don’t know about a bird you spotted, they’ll help you out. And in an hour or less, I had my answer.

The bird, as it turns out, is the Melodious Laughing Thrush, or “Gabi-chou” in Japanese. It’s a Chinese bird (Chinese name: Hwamei) which has been accidentally introduced into Japan and Hawaii, and is considered an invasive species which threatens other thrushes and even perhaps the Bush Warblers. Apparently, it is prized for its song (which it did not display for us today), and is one of many species banned for import by the Japanese government. There is a 2004 study of it here, with maps of its ranges and expansion.

As I mentioned, I did not get very good shots, but this is what I have. You can see what I mean by the facial markings. For clearer shots, look here.

Note the white swirl markings on its belly; I haven’t seen that elsewhere.

These last two images show the color better; it was definitely more reddish-brown than appears in the first two images. Better lighting brought that out.

TPM picks up on an interesting statement from the right-wing Power Line blog:

The truth is that the Bush administration has been extraordinarily scandal-free. Not a single instance of corruption has been unearthed. Only one significant member of the executive branch, Scooter Libby, has been convicted of anything. Whether the jury’s verdict was right or wrong, that case was an individual tragedy unrelated to any underlying wrongdoing by Libby or anyone else.

It is fascinating to see the subtle definition being made here: “scandal,” apparently, is restricted to a “significant member of the executive branch” being “convicted of anything.” I bet that if the same person were to define “scandal” under the Clinton administration, there would be a much broader net.

Even so, the Power Line blogger is still wrong. As TPM points out, many administration officials have been involved in scandal, even under their narrow definition, including Bush FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford (pled guilty to conflict of interest and making false statements), Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy Claude Allen (pled guilty to shoplifting), DHS Deputy Press Secretary Brian Doyle (pled no contest in pedophile case), and senior DHS official Frank Figueroa (pled no contest in case where he exposed and fondled himself in front of a 16-year-old girl in a shopping mall). Aside from Scooter Libby, these four certainly count as significant executive branch members (unless the Power Line guy would like to further narrow the definition). The TPM list is far more exhaustive, but includes administration officials that maybe aren’t as “significant.”

Of course, maybe I’m just going nuts here, but I myself would count “scandal” to include more than just secured convictions of senior executive branch personnel. Definitely, the prosecutor firings are a “scandal,” as I think just about everyone who isn’t a “loyal Bushie” would admit (certainly, the same people who call the prosecutor firings a “faux scandal” are ones who considered the Clinton “Travelgate” firings a “real scandal,” despite the fact that they were of far less significance than the attorney firings).

But scandals of this nature–malfeasance that may be covered up enough so as not to end in convictions, or even malfeasance which is not technically illegal but is corrupt as hell–go back to the beginning of the Bush administration, and have occurred regularly since then. We can start with Vice President Dick Cheney inviting the leaders of the energy industry in the White House to dictate U.S. energy policy, and then refusing to come clean about who was there and what they said. Also a scandal at the start was the Enron mess–Ken Lay may not have been a “significant member of the executive branch,” but he was Bush’s most notable patron from Texas, and a personal friend of the former governor. How about the administration’s failure to follow up on multiple significant warnings about al Qaeda before 9/11, and then the attempt to cover that up? What about Bush’s resistance to allowing the 9/11 commission to go forward, his refusal to testify under oath for it, and his resistance to carrying out their recommendations? There is the scandal of how badly the Bush administration screwed up in dealing with hurricane Katrina. How about the use of fake “security alerts” to help throw the 2004 election his way? Or the billions of dollars “lost” in Iraq? Or the no-bid contracts given to Cheney-bound Halliburton? Or the fake news stories planted in the press? The use of federal funds to create “informational” videos which were essentially Bush campaign commercials? Lying to Congress about Medicare? Approving of torture and not recognizing the Geneva conventions? Any number of revelations about Guantanamo Bay? The rewriting of scientific reports to fit the administration’s political agenda? The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch lies? And of course, now we have the latest scandal with top State Department adviser Randall Tobias stepping down after it became known that he hired prostitutes to give him “massages.”

Was Abu Ghraib not a scandal? Were the warrantless wiretaps not a scandal? Was the whole of the Valerie Plame case, aside from Scooter Libby, not a scandal? Was Jack Abramoff not a scandal? Was lying to the American people about Iraq not a scandal?

The Bush administration has, in fact, been virtually nothing but wall-to-wall scandals since day one. But because of the lack of oversight from the Republican-controlled Congress, because of the veil of 9/11 and terrorism, and all too often because of their ability to destroy records and lie unabashedly, there have been relatively few convictions of senior executive branch members.

Now, if that’s not something to be proud of, what is?

Saw this over at Pharyngula, and it’s just too good not to spread around. Enjoy.

This story just out:

Former U.S. AID director Randall Tobias, who resigned yesterday upon admitting that he frequented a Washington escort service, oversaw a controversial policy advocated by the religious right that required any US-based group receiving anti-AIDS funds to take an anti-prostitution “loyalty oath.”

I think I understand conservatives now. I mean, just look at it. Newt Gingrich attacks Bill Clinton for having an affair while Newt Gingrich is having an affair. Most of the family-values Republicans have had multiple divorces where they committed adultery. Any number of anti-gay religious leaders, like Ted Haggard, have turned out to be gay. Bush condemns Democrats for delaying soldiers’ return home, and the next day his administration extends tours of duty from 12 months to 15 months.

Isn’t it obvious? When conservatives say something is bad, when they attack someone for doing something they see as wrong, it’s because they are doing it. It’s guilt talking. When conservatives do something they see as wrong or immoral, they feel the need to assign that guilt. Unable to take responsibility for what they see as their own shortcomings, they assign the blame and guilt to others.

This makes understanding the public statements of conservatives so much easier. Bush accuses Democrats of losing the war–see, Bush is not stupid, he does realize he’s losing the war! Now that makes sense! Giuliani says that if a Democrat becomes president, the country will be more open to terrorist attack–of course! How could Giuliani not see that Republicans have botched the war on terror? And this theory totally explains Bill O’Reilly!

Go ahead, apply this theory to the conservative figure of your choice. If there’s no record yet of their having done the wrongs they’re complaining about, you know where to dig now!

Talking Points Memo has the hoary details on Rush Limbaugh’s racist fling with the “Magic Negro” meme. Rush has a slew of songs done by an associate which are apparently done in an imitation of Al Sharpton, several which are in reference to Barack Obama. One of them is the infamous parody of the song, “Puff, the Magic Dragon.”

How can you tell that it’s racist, and not simply satire? Simple: Rush goes to great lengths to note that the L.A. Times said “Magic Negro” first. Both in his speaking it and in the song version, he makes certain that the blame for the expression is laid carefully at the door of the L.A. Times columnist–and then he goes to town in an orgy of racial insults. If Rush thought that there was nothing wrong with the expression, then he would simply say it and have no awareness of the sensibilities involved. By first invoking the L.A. Times, he carefully establishes that the source was somewhere else, and he is just repeating what they said. It is obviously an excuse for doing what Limbaugh clearly knows is inappropriate; he found the justification, the loophole for going on a spree of racism that he really wants to express.

The primary difference between Limbaugh and Imus is premeditation. Imus let slip his racial slur, as part of his normal speech. It just came out. Limbaugh, on the other hand, is more savvy. He is fully aware of his racist bent, he knows that it is inexcusable, and knows that in order to let it fly, he must find a justification for it.

So, of course, Imus gets canned, and Limbaugh, the fat, cigar-sucking, drug abusing, Viagra-downing out-and-out racist, establishes job security. It’s all about how well you know you’re scum, and making sure you cover your tracks.

Feministe makes a good point: when religious extremists try to blow up clinics where abortions are performed, it is not called “terrorism,” and nobody makes a big deal about it. On Google News, a search for “texas abortion clinic bomb” gets 264 hits. But a search for “texas abortion clinic bomb terrorist” gets none.

The suspect is being charged with “manufacture of explosive material,” “violating freedom of access to clinic entrances,” and, interestingly, “use of weapons of mass destruction,” which I admit sounds terroristy, but certainly does not apply to the usual definition of WMD. But no specific terrorism charges have been brought, despite the fact that abortion clinic bombings fit the definition of “terrorism” to a tee.

Something you hear conservatives repeat, again and again these days, is that Democratic folk who say that the war is lost or that we should withdraw in X number of months are “emboldening the enemy” and working against our troops, or some variation of that. Aside from the given assumption that these statements are purely political in nature, there is a very strong logical reason to dismiss such claims.

The basic presumption behind the assertion that saying such things is that the Iraqi insurgency is all but lost, is in its “last throes,” if you will, and they are ready to fold up and go home–but because some politicians in the U.S. say the war is unwinnable or that we must withdraw in a year and an half or whatever, the insurgents in Iraq, upon hearing this news, redouble their efforts and decide not to give up. You can’t get around this presumption; without it, the criticism is meaningless. You can’t argue that it means insurgents will escalate and that will hurt our troops; after all, if I were an insurgent and I was confident that the U.S. was on its way out anyway, I’d actually slow things down and wait for the exit so I could use my resources when the U.S. forces were out of the way.

But the other argument, that the insurgents are ready to lose their war, is even more ludicrous. It exemplifies a complete ignorance concerning the nature of insurgencies, especially unsuccessful ones. If there is one rule about them, it is this: they are not short. Go ahead, try to name a major insurgency in the last century that both failed and lasted only five years or so. You can’t, because there wasn’t one, especially not on the scale that we see in Iraq. The Palestinian insurgency has been going on for half a century; the Irish insurgency, maybe 30 years. Columbia, 40 years; South Africa also lasted about 40. The list goes on. The shortest insurgencies last about a decade, but they usually end early because the insurgents are successful, or they peter out before they really get going. The latter clearly does not apply to the Iraqi insurgency.

Also, despite Bush administration claims that the insurgency is ready to go belly-up, there is absolutely no indication in fact that this is so. If anything, the insurgency is escalating, not dying down. One grim piece of evidence to this effect is the slow but steady rise in the number of U.S. troops killed; previously only two per day, now an average of more then three troops are killed in Iraq each day, and Bush’s “surge” is only adding fuel to the fire.

The meaning of this is evident: the Iraqi insurgency, like most insurgencies, is in it for the long haul. They will go one a decade, two decades, or longer. Announcing a withdrawal date or recognizing the clear fact that Bush has clusterf*cked us into a loss will not “embolden” the insurgents in any meaningful way.

On the contrary, if we find ourselves unable to recognize the plain fact that the Iraq War is now unwinnable, if we find ourselves incapable of setting a withdrawal date out of any kind of fear, then we condemn our troops to fight and die for no good purpose. I sincerely believe that no soldier dies in vain because a soldier’s sacrifice is to the country and not to the specific cause; soldiers sign up to serve in whatever way the government deems necessary, not to fight a specific battle and then go home. But soldiers can be made to fight and die in a conflict that has no hope and purpose, and that is the ultimate dishonor against them.