December 2004 Archives

Somehow I knew her writings would annoy the living sh*t out of me.

U.S. Should Not Help Tsunami Victims Thursday â  December€ â €  30, â €  2004 By: David Holcberg

Our money is not the government's to give.

As the death toll mounts in the areas hit by Sunday's tsunami in southern
Asia, private organizations and individuals are scrambling to send out
money and goods to help the victims. Such help may be entirely proper,
especially considering that most of those affected by this tragedy are
suffering through no fault of their own.

The United States government, however, should not give any money to help
the tsunami victims. Why? Because the money is not the government's to
give.

Every cent the government spends comes from taxation. Every dollar the
government hands out as foreign aid has to be extorted from an American
taxpayer first. Year after year, for decades, the government has forced
American taxpayers to provide foreign aid to every type of natural or
man-made disaster on the face of the earth: from the Marshall Plan to
reconstruct a war-ravaged Europe to the $15 billion recently promised to
fight AIDS in Africa to the countless amounts spent to help the victims of
earthquakes, fires and floods--from South America to Asia. Even the
enemies of the United States were given money extorted from American
taxpayers: from the billions given away by Clinton to help the starving
North Koreans to the billions given away by Bush to help the blood-thirsty
Palestinians under Arafat's murderous regime.

The question no one asks about our politicians' "generosity" towards the
world's needy is: By what right? By what right do they take our
hard-earned money and give it away?

The reason politicians can get away with doling out money that they have
no right to and that does not belong to them is that they have the
morality of altruism on their side. According to altruism--the morality
that most Americans accept and that politicians exploit for all it's
worth--those who have more have the moral obligation to help those who
have less. This is why Americans--the wealthiest people on earth--are
expected to sacrifice (voluntarily or by force) the wealth they have
earned to provide for the needs of those who did not earn it. It is
Americans' acceptance of altruism that renders them morally impotent to
protest against the confiscation and distribution of their wealth. It is
past time to question--and to reject--such a vicious morality that demands
that we sacrifice our values instead of holding on to them.

Next time a politician gives away money taken from you to show what a
good, compassionate altruist he is, ask yourself: By what right?

David Holcberg is a research associate at the Ayn Rand Institute in
Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author
of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Yes, I think I object to objectivism.

Aid benefits donor as well as recipient

Aid is not charity. This is the basic point that the West, particularly
the US, must realise. The Bush administration has 'doubled' its aid
commitment to the tsunami-affected to $35 million, after its earlier
pledge of $15 million provoked the UN Relief Coordinator to dub it as
'stingy'. The US can keep these crumbs if it feels so pained to part with
funds in the face of what the UN terms the worst-ever disaster in terms of
the scale of relief required. It should also realise that its parsimonious
instincts do not serve its own interests. In a globally integrated world,
a catastrophe in Phuket could affect Texas, where George W Bush prefers to
locate himself at this time of the year. With Thailand off the tourist
map, US business interests such as travel agencies, hotels and airlines
would also be hit. For too long has the US looked at aid as a lever to
further its political and economic interests, particularly in West Asia.
But that paradigm, apart from being cynical, is also outmoded in today's
context. Since the late eighties, there has been a marked shift in FDI
flows from Europe to Asia. The affected countries are not just
anthropological curiosities, but markets at the edge of prosperity. Aid to
such societies to develop their infrastructure and achieve a greater
measure of social and economic equity will not only help them but also the
donors. The developed countries, having reached consumption saturation
point, must in order to maintain their prosperity look for new markets in
the developing world. Far from realising this, the First World, and the US
in particular, has been less than generous in terms of economic
assistance.

Not that I want to make a major point about the differences between href="http://www.apple.com">Apple and href="http://www.microsoft.com">Microsoft, but looky here...

The difference is striking, no?

So, this guy does the math and finds that Bush's plan doesn't add up...

Just ask Stanley Logue of San Diego.

For 45 years, the defense-industry analyst paid into the system until his retirement in 1994. But with all the recent hoopla over reform, Mr. Logue, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate, decided to go back and check his own records. Would he have done better investing his money than the bureaucrats at the Social Security Administration?

He recorded all the payroll taxes he paid into the system (including the matching amount from his employer), tracked down the return the Social Security Trust Fund earned for each of the 45 years, and then compared the result with what he would have gotten had he been able to invest the same amount of payroll tax money over the same period in the Dow Jones Industrial Average (including dividends).

To his surprise, the Social Security investment won out: $261,372 versus $255,499, a difference of $5,873.

It's an astonishing finding. The DJIA represents blue-chip stocks. Social Security invests in US Treasury bonds. Over long periods of time, stocks have consistently outperformed bonds. So, you would think that Logue's theoretical stock investments from 1950 to 1994 would have surely outpaced the return on government bonds.

The fact that they didn't illustrates one of the hard truths about stock investing: Timing matters.

And did you know that two-thirds of households where everybody there is 65 or older (i.e., no younger working spouse to support you!) get more than half of their income from Social Security payments? That a third of 65+ households get 90% of their income from Social Security?

So if you want lackluster returns, a Social Security system that's really in trouble, and a whole lot of elderly poor people (and remember, the 65+ population is booming!), go on and "reform" Social Security. Proceed with this cockamamie plan and let the fun begin!

Bush now says the U.S. will pony up more assistence for the tsunami victims.

Of course, being Bush, he had to get all pissy.

The White House faced criticism on Tuesday over the fact that Bush, who is vacationing at his Crawford, Texas ranch, had not yet appeared in person to talk about the disaster.

 "These past few days have brought loss and grief to the world that is beyond our comprehension," Bush said.

 "The United States will continue to stand with the affected governments as they care for the victims. We will stand with them as they start to rebuild their communities," he said, adding that he had spoken by phone to the leaders of India, Sri Lanka, Thailand and Indonesia.

 "I assure those leaders that this is just only the beginning of our help," he said.

 At a briefing with reporters at an airport hangar near the ranch, Bush displayed pique at a comment by a U.N. official that rich countries had generally been "stingy" in aid to poor countries.

 "I felt like the person who made that statement was very misguided and ill-informed," he said.

 "In the year 2004, our government provided $2.4 billion in food and cash and humanitarian relief. ... That's 40 percent of all the relief aid given in the world last year," he said.

You'd think such a media creation as Dubya would appreciate the importance of appearances. Had he immediately made a statement and performed some symbolic act to show that he was taking this tragedy seriously, people would notice that. It was a golden opportunity to heal rifts with the outside world, and he missed it.Like anybody's really surprised...

In times like these, it's interesting to see different groups' priorities.

I've gotten end-of-year fundraising pleas from the usual suspects (HRC, Alameda County Food Bank)). I got a message from Brit Tzedek v'Shalom urging everyone to seize the latest opportunity to make peace in the Middle East. So far, two groups (Working Assets and American Jewish World Service) have sent emails about the tsunami disaster (80,000 dead and counting at this point!)

Then we have this beautiful piece of work from the American Family Association, who seem to think I'm their little pen-pal now.

Please forward this to your family and friends!
 
HELP THE PRESIDENT DECIDE THE KIND OF JUDGES TO APPOINT
Tell the President the kind of Supreme Court and Federal judges he should appoint

Your email will go straight to the White House.


Dear XXXX,
Very soon President Bush will be appointing several Federal judges, including the possibility of appointing one or more Supreme Court judges.

The most important decision the President will make during the next four years will be the kind of judges he appoints.

 We encourage you to send the President an email encouraging him to appoint the kind of judges you want on the Federal courts.

 The time to make your voice heard is now, before nominations are made!

 If you think the President should appoint "strict constructionist" judges--that is, judges who interpret the constitution to seek the original intent of the document--click here.

 If you think the President should appoint "progressive" judges who believe they should change the Constitution to make laws they feel are needed but that Congress refuses to make, click here.

 To see the number of individuals who have sent letters encouraging the President for each category, click here.

 The more people who participate, the better feel the President will have of public opinion. Please forward this to your friends and family.

 Sincerely,

Don

Donald E. Wildmon, Founder and Chairman
 American Family Association

P.S. Please forward this email to family and friends.

Branson, Missouri, Worldview Weekend conference - Michael Youssef, Kirk Cameron, Erwin Lutzer, Ray Comfort, Tim Wildmon and others will be at this event April 29, 30 and May 1.

It's Not Gay: This 28-minute video presents a story that few have heard, allowing former homosexuals the opportunity to tell their own story in their own words. Along with medical and mental health experts, these individuals express a clear warning that the sanitized version of homosexuality being presented to students is not the whole truth.

Spiritual Heritage Tours - Tours of Washington, D.C. and Mount Vernon with an emphasis on America's Christian heritage, led by AFA president Tim Wildmon and AFR general manager Marvin Sanders.
 You are receiving this mailing because you took action on an AFA-sponsored poll, petition, or action alert. You are subscribed to afapetition as xxxxxxxxxt.

In keeping with our privacy policy, AFA may periodically contact you regarding issues of concern to the family. Rest assured that your subscription e-mail address will be kept in the strictest confidence. We do not divulge, nor make available to any third party, our subscription list. Your privacy is paramount to us! If you do not wish to receive further communications from us, click here to unsubscribe.

 Questions or comments about AFA? Contact us via email, phone, fax, or postal mail.


www.afa.net
 Copyright 2002-2004
 American Family Association
 107 Parkgate Dr.
 Tupelo, MS 38801
 1-662-844-5036
 All Rights Reserved

I have half a mind to take them up on their offer and contact them to tell them what I think. Which is: What the hell is a "Christian" "Family" organization doing, in a week when thousands of families have been destroyed, sending out this garbage? Why aren't they doing the "Christian" thing and encouraging their members to get their heads out of their asses and do something GOOD for a change?

I shouldn't even bother being outraged, but really, timing IS everything.
 
 

First, the pitch (from my work):

The American Jewish World Service is working to help provide emergency relief to victims of the massive tidal waves in Asia, which have killed tens of thousands and caused massive devastation. Click here to donate to the relief effort. The American Joint Distribution Committee (which receives funding from our annual campaign) has also set up an open mailbox for contributions (more information).  Click here to donate online, or make checks payable to the JDC Southeast Asia Tsunami Relief fund and send to: JDC Southeast Asia Tsunami Relief, Box 321, 847A Second Avenue, New York, NY 10017. 95% of funds raised will go directly to relief efforts.

And of course, there's the Red Cross's International Response Fund.

Meanwhile, it appears that our illustrious leader is carefully trying to convey the impression that he is a heartless bastard who only cares about the victims of natural disasters when 1) they happen to be Americans, 2) strike during a campaign year when he's running for reelection (before the election, of course), 3) occur in a swing state run by his brother.

Earlier yesterday, White House spokesman Trent Duffy said the president was confident he could monitor events effectively without returning to Washington or making public statements in Crawford, where he spent part of the day clearing brush and bicycling. Explaining the about-face, a White House official said: "The president wanted to be fully briefed on our efforts. He didn't want to make a symbolic statement about 'We feel your pain.' "

Many Bush aides believe Clinton was too quick to head for the cameras to hold forth on tragedies with his trademark empathy. "Actions speak louder than words," a top Bush aide said, describing the president's view of his appropriate role.

It's a true thing...

A progressive commenter on DailyKos wrote a love letter to America.

I love the myth of America.  I love hard working immigrants fighting against the tired old world and the mean new world.  I love my great-grandparent tales - on ships, cattle thieves, gamblers and drunks.  I love Sandberg's Hog butcher to the world and Williams's White chickens.  I like the Mormons making a kingdom in the desert, the Texans stealing Texas, Teddy fighting roughshod.  I love Zinn's telling of courage, organizing, brave fights for the people of America.  I love the underground railroad.  I love the reformers.  I love the sweatshop girls trapped in pinned down shirt factories being burned as if in hell.  And I love those who rise up for justice, to end the hells of our past and present.

This post inspired me to finally write about Christmas, though I've been thinking about this for a while.

It's now the 26th, and although the shops are still filled with Christmas merchandise (now heavily discounted) and all the houses still have their lights up, the holiday is over and we're moving towards the new year.

Although I am Jewish, Christmas was always a pretty big deal in my extremely assimilated-to-the-point-of-nonexistence Jewish family. (I tried to get us to light Chanukah candles at one point when I was a kid, but it just didn't catch on.) My maternal grandmother had a little flashing pin shaped like a Christmas light, which she'd wear every December. My parents always got a tree and we decorated it. We'd have presents, Christmas dinner, the works. To this day, my mother still fills Christmas stockings for my sister and me, though, now that we're in our thirties, toys have been replaced by packages of stockings and small kitchen gadgets.

However, my relationship to the holiday has definitely changed over the years. Relatives have become less mobile with advancing age, some have died, and others have just moved further away and it's become harder to organize a single family get-together. Thanksgiving has become the biggie — it's just somehow less emotionally fraught, and consequently more fun. (It's all about the food.)

And now I am married to a Jewish man who thinks it's very odd that a Jewish family would make such a big deal of this Christmas thing. Christmas, to him, means going out for Chinese food and catching a movie.

I'm also working at a Jewish organization which has made me acutely aware of the Jewish holiday calendar. I amuse my mother by explaining Shmini Atzeret and Simchat Torah.

Slowly, over the years, my holiday center of gravity has shifted.

Still, none of this makes me feel bad about Christmas, and I still get a little thrill from seeing the Christmas lights, the ice skating rink set up in Justin Herman Plaza, the singers dressed in costume in the grocery store the other day, and I'm as materialistic as anyone else and enjoy receiving gifts, and even giving gifts... I can even tolerate the Christmas music up to a point. (Though I think my favorite songs are the ones by the Kinks and the Waitresses).

This year, though, I'm feeling more uncomfortable. Is it the rampant commercialism? Yeah, that doesn't help, but that has long been a part of the holiday here. (I avoided the shops the day after Thanksgiving like the plague!) You don't have to give in to the madness. Sometimes, I even pretend that I live in a foreign country. Would I be annoyed if everyone had their Eid decorations up? (Er... do people put up decorations for Eid?)

But really, it all comes down to the tempest in a teapot that was the "controversy" over stores that — gasp! — say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" to their customers. Hell, I've said "Happy Holidays" for years! Why not? It covers Chanukah, Christmas, New Year's, Kwanzaa, the Solstice... you name it.

These are the people behind it. We have Bill O'Reilly, saying "You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on, [caller] — if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then." We have some guy from the Catholic League saying, "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular." It is deeply, deeply creepy.

And I wonder what's going on here. It's their holiday. Most of the country celebrates it. We have a strongly Christian president. The tide is seemingly turning in favor of those who want their religion to feature prominently in public life. They should be happy. While celebrating the birth of their Savior, they could also be taking the time to reflect on the man he'd grow up to become, reread his teachings, and really take them to heart. It's supposed to be a holiday of "comfort and joy." Yet all they can do is point fingers, play on fears and hatred of "the other", and keep tabs on who is publicly observing the holiday the way they think it should be. Why are they trying to out-Taliban the Taliban?

This column by Roger Ebert really says it all for me:

This is really an argument between two kinds of prayer--vertical and horizontal. I don't have the slightest problem with vertical prayer. It is horizontal prayer that frightens me. Vertical prayer is private, directed upward toward heaven. It need not be spoken aloud, because God is a spirit and has no ears. Horizontal prayer must always be audible, because its purpose is not to be heard by God, but to be heard by fellow men standing within earshot.

To choose an example from football, when my team needs a field goal to win and I think, ''Please, dear God, let them make it!''--that is vertical prayer. When, before the game, a group of fans joins hands and ''voluntarily'' recites the Lord's Prayer--that is horizontal prayer. It serves one of two purposes: to encourage me to join them, or to make me feel excluded.

Although some of the horizontal devout are sincere, others use this prayer as a device of recruitment or intimidation. If you are conspicuous in your refusal to go along, they may even turn and pray while holding you directly in their sights.

This simple insight about two kinds of prayer, which is beyond theological question, should bring a dead halt to the obsession with prayer in public places. It doesn't, because the purpose of its supporters is political, not spiritual. Their faith is like Dial soap: Now that they use it, they wish everyone would. I grew up in an America where people of good breeding did not impose their religious convictions upon those they did not know very well. Now those manners have been discarded.

You can't enforce holiday spirit, but you can do a great deal to destroy it. Someone is destroying it, but it's not the atheists and it's not the Jews. What would Jesus really do? I wish these hypocrites would ask themselves that.

For everyone else, I hope you had good holidays, whichever they were for you.

You must read this.

Rebecca Solnit rocks.

For history will remember 2004 not with the microscopic lens of we who lived through it the way aphids traverse a rose, but with a telescopic eye that sees it as part of the stream of wild changes that exploded in 1989 in one of the greatest years of revolutions the world has ever seen, the first great harvest of seeds sown years and decades before. That was the year students sat down in Tiananmen Square in Beijing and demanded democracy, the year that the long struggle of Solidarity in Poland paid off with a democracy, that Czechoslovakia's protracted struggle for liberty culminated in the Velvet Revolution, the year Hungary freed itself, the year the Berlin Wall fell, and the beginning of the end of the apartheid era arrived. Nobody, including the Soviets, woke up on January 1, 1989, thinking that their empire had only a few hundred days left.

Do read the whole thing. Merry Christmas!

A funny thing happened on the way out of the BART station yesterday...

I exited the train, and, because I was carrying two bags and a box, decided to take the escalator rather than the stairs. Ahead of me was a group of three people, an elderly couple with luggage, including a very big suitcase, and a younger man.

When they reached the bottom of the escalator, bad things happened. One of them, I think it was the elderly gentleman, had trouble maneuvering his bag; it tipped over, and so did he.

Then his wife tried to help him up, but it was no use, and over she went too.

Their third companion was standing behind them and had nowhere to go but down.

Meanwhile, I was about 10 feet behind this pile of humans and bags, and approaching quickly. They were totally blocking the exit.

So I did something I hadn't done since I was a kid. I turned around and started walking up the down escalator.

Unfortunately, there were, of course, people behind me! Luckily, there weren't a lot of them, so they were able to also go back up. And there we were, treading water.

Somebody finally got the attention of the BART employee in her booth, and she pushed the emergency button and brought the whole thing to a halt.

The couple were fine, nothing broken or bruised (except their pride, perhaps.) I think the BART employee had to call someone to get the escalator going again.

And I must confess, I was giggling to myself all the way to the car.

From the Washington Post...

The Bush administration is facing a wave of new allegations that the abuse of foreign detainees in U.S. military custody was more widespread, varied and grave in the past three years than the Defense Department has long maintained.

New documents released yesterday detail a series of probes by Army criminal investigators into multiple cases of threatened executions of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers, as well as of thefts of currency and other private property, physical assaults, and deadly shootings of detainees at detention camps in Iraq.

In many of the newly disclosed cases, Army commanders chose noncriminal punishments for those involved in the abuse, or the investigations were so flawed that prosecutions could not go forward, the documents show. Human rights groups said yesterday that, as a result, the penalties imposed were too light to suit the offenses.

The complaints arose from several thousand new pages of internal reports, investigations and e-mails from different agencies, which, with other documents released in the past two weeks, paint a finer-grained picture of military abuse and criminal behavior at prisons in Cuba, Iraq and Afghanistan than previously available.

The documents disclosed by a coalition of groups that had sued the government to obtain them make it clear that both regular and Special Forces soldiers took part in the abuse, and that the misconduct included shocking detainees with electric guns, shackling them without food and water, and wrapping a detainee in an Israeli flag.

Somehow, I find the bit about the flag to be the most disturbing part of a very disturbing story. Because not only would the detainees regard this as an insult, but clearly, American soldiers did too.

I was going to write something sarcastic and bitter, but I just... can't.

So sick.

Here's a picture of a pendant I made for my aunt (I hope she doesn't know where this website is.)

The stones are synthetic, so they can be set into the clay and fired without damage or color changes.

I can't make head or tail out of what happened at this Jewish community center on the East Coast, but the implications seem troubling...

Finding Title VII's exemption for religious institutions "is not limited to facilities where prayer takes place," a magistrate judge has dismissed a suit against a Jewish community center brought by an evangelical Christian who claims she was fired because she attended a "Jews for Jesus" concert.

In his 15-page opinion in LeBoon v. Lancaster Jewish Community Center, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacob P. Hart rejected the plaintiff's argument that the LJCC is not entitled to the exemption because its purpose is "essentially secular," and it is not affiliated with any synagogue.

Instead, Hart found that courts have taken a broader view of the exemption, extending it to any institution that includes religion among its primary purposes.

Plaintiff's attorney J. Michael Considine Jr. of West Chester, Pa. argued in court papers that LJCC's mission statement showed that it focuses on developing a Jewish community in Lancaster through "identity, education and cooperation."

As a result, Considine argued, LJCC's mission "is not spiritual."

Hart disagreed, saying "this fails to take account of the fact that LJCC seeks to sustain a specifically Jewish community."

I can't stand the Jews for Jesus, and what the hell is an Evangelical Christian doing working at a JCC?  However, if I'm reading this right, it sets a dangerous precedent. If they fired her for performance reasons, that sounds fair (and she sounds like a pain.) However, the judge went beyond that to say that the JCC is basically entitled to act like a religious institution, and remove staff for religious reasons.

Our local JCCs are not synagogues. They are community centers. Many people who go to them are not Jewish, and I suspect that the staff is also quite mixed. So this ruling puzzles me. I am troubled by the priority given to institutional rights over individual rights.

Next time, it won't be a JCC. It will be one of Bush's faith-based  — read Christian — agencies, which he's hell-bent on substituting for public programs, and who will lose their job then? A Buddhist? A Jew?

I really hope I'm just overreacting, but I suspect not...

Updated to add: nope, I wasn't overreacting. Christianity Today has the same interpretation of this ruling that I did.

Remember March's California Supreme Court ruling against Catholic Charities, which argued just the opposite: Employing and offering social services to non-Catholics makes the ministry non-religious. Remember also the U.S. government's revoking Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen's "special immigrant religious worker" visa because Fuller Seminary isn't tied to a denomination.

Where this may probably be the best news is in any expansion of the faith-based initiative. Some pundits and politicians have been adamant that publicly funded religious organizations be forbidden from making staffing decisions on religious grounds. Hart's decision may help to shore up the rights of faith-based groups to stay rooted in their faith. Religious organizations must have the right to fire employees whose actions and religious beliefs are diametrically opposed to that organization's mission.

In other words, they want to be able to discriminate on the basis of religion in their hiring practices, but they want to be able to use my tax dollars to do it.

Edited to add again:

Look who else is happy about this: Stormfront, the white supremicist group! (I'm not linking to them because they scare me)

This sets a precedent for the right to start white Communities, and solicit ONLY white membership. Or are they going to tell us now that only jews have that right?

Like I keep saying, these losers are going to defeat themselves. Them calling us racist is definately the Tea Pot calling the Kettle black.

Greeatttttt...

Interesting-looking book from O'Reily, accompanied by an equally interesting blog.

Mind Hacks begins your exploration of the mind with a look inside the brain itself, using hacks such as "Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Turn On and Off Bits of the Brain" and "Tour the Cortex and the Four Lobes." Also among the 100 hacks in this book, you'll find:
 

• Release Eye Fixations for Faster Reactions
• See Movement When All is Still
• Feel the Presence and Loss of Attention 
• Detect Sounds on the Margins of Certainty
  
• Mold Your Body Schema
• Test Your Handedness
• See a Person in Moving Lights
• Make Events Understandable as Cause-and-Effect
• Boost Memory by Using Context
• Understand Detail and the Limits of Attention

It's the annual Barney video from the White House!

Perhaps only Scottish Terrier devotees are aware of this, but some of your tax dollars go to produce videos of the Bush family's dog every year.

It's cool. He's so darn cute! Plus he was born in New Jersey, which is, I believe, a "Blue State."

This year's video creeped me out more than a little, however...

A month after the election, CNN reports...

Fifty-two percent of respondents to a new poll think Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld should resign amid recent criticism in Congress over his handling of the war in Iraq.

Thirty-six percent of respondents to the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll said Rumsfeld should not step down, and the remainder had no opinion. The margin of error for the question was 4.5 percentage points among the 1,002 Americans surveyed by telephone between Friday and Sunday.

The defense secretary was recently chided for telling U.S. soldiers headed for Iraq that "you go to war with the Army you have ... not the Army you might want or wish you had."null

In addition, Rumsfeld's wartime performance has been criticized by many Democratic and some Republican lawmakers, including Sens. Trent Lott of Mississippi and John McCain of Arizona. 

Despite the criticism, President Bush strongly came out in support of his Pentagon chief during a news conference Monday. null

The secretary's approval rating has fallen from 71 percent in April 2003 at the height of the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq to 41 percent in the new survey.

As for Bush, 49 percent of respondents said they approved of the job the president is doing. That number is down from his November approval rating of 55 percent. Bush is the first incumbent president to have an approval rating below 50 percent one month after winning re-election. The question had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

The charitable interpretation is that Bush only won because of voter fraud.

The less charitable interpretation is that a slender majority of voters in this country are complete and total dumbasses. Oh yeah, guys, like you didn't notice the war was going horribly last month? Did you just wake up and notice that the economy is still lackluster, and that Rumsfeld is a callous prick and that Bush is glib, shallow, and without substance as a leader?

That's what I thought.

Makes me think of that line from The Wedding Singer. "That's a piece of information that would have come in handy YESTERDAY!!!!!"

Josh Marshall's post on President Bush's press conference today, in which Bush, yet again, announced that he was not going to negotiate with himself, made me do some thinking. And so I marched into the living room and announced to Michael,

"I'm not gonna negotiate with myself. I'm gonna get an iPod."

"Fine, " he replied.

"I'm not gonna change my mind. I'm not gonna negotiate with myself."

"Fine. I have no objection to you getting an iPod." Understanding dawned. "No, see, for it to work, you need to announce you're going to do something that I don't want you to do."

"O.K., then... I'm gonna buy a Windows XP machine. Don't try to change my mind, I'm not gonna negotiate with myself..."

"NO! I don't want you to get a Windows XP machine!"

"I'm not gonna negotiate with myself!"

Maybe you had to be there. Wonder how arguments go down in the Bush household?

President Bush is holding a press conference.

The thought of listening to his stumbling, arrogant nonsense for the next four years nauseates me beyond belief.

Pass the barf bag, please.

I got this press release at work from Rabbi Learner, the editor of Tikkun Magazine. Normally I find his writing too wordy, but this gets right to the point. I had heard about Bill O'Reilly's comments to  Jewish caller that if he didn't like all the Christmassy stuff, he should move to Israel, but I hadn't realized quite how widespread this poison was. Also, it's interesting how there are all these ads on television for violent computer games... the perfect Christmas present? (I suppose that group who has been sending all those complaints to the FCC about a little titty might take the time to say something about that? Nah.)

News Release:

CHRISTMAS WARS: The Jews and Secularists Did NOT Steal Christmas, But It WAS STOLEN!
by Rabbi Michael Lerner

 The Christmas Wars  a News Release by Rabbi Michael Lerner  Monday, Dec. 20, 2004  Flush from their electoral victories in November, some leaders of the Christian Right have decided to make an issue of the secularization of Christmas. Objecting to the move by Macy's and some other retailers to wish their shoppers "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons Greetings" instead of the traditional Merry Christmas, they have begun to accuse secularists in general, and, on some of the right-wing talk shows, Jews in particular, of undermining Christmas.

 It's easy to dismiss these Right-wingers as sore winners. They are well on their way to packing the judiciary with judges who may erode the division between church and state, make abortion more difficult or illegal, and support the pro-torture position of Bush's choice for Attorney General. Yet the 25% of Jews who voted for Bush in this past election may not have imagined that along with his vigorous support for Sharon and for the war in Iraq, Bush's electoral victory could spur a public assault on the legitimacy of Jewish identity in the U.S.

 The assault has been led by Bill O'Reilly, the most popular cable newscaster, who told millions of viewers that there was a systematic assault on Christmas by secularists. When challenged by a Jewish caller who said he felt uncomfortable being subject to frequent attempts to convert him by Christians at his college, O'Reilly responded: "All right. Well, what I'm tellin' you, is I think you're takin' it too seriously. You have a predominantly Christian nation. You have a federal holiday based on the philosopher Jesus. And you don't wanna hear about it? Come on -- if you are really offended, you gotta go to Israel then. I mean because we live in a country founded on Judeo -- and that's your guys' -- Christian, that's my guys' philosophy. But overwhelmingly, America is Christian. And the holiday is a federal holiday honoring the philosopher Jesus. So, you don't wanna hear about it? Impossible. And that is an affront to the majority. You know, the majority can be insulted, too. And that's what this anti-Christmas thing is all about."

 Meanwhile, Richard Viguerie, the master of Right-wing direct mail campaigns, interviewed by Terry Gross on NPR's Fresh Air on Dec. 13, repeated the charge that Christians were the victims of a systematic secularists assault against Christmas. On MSNBC last week William Donahue of the Catholic League insisted, "Hollywood is controlled by secular Jews who hate Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular. It's not a secret, OK? They like to see the public square without nativity scenes."

 Liberals and civil libertarians would be making a huge mistake to see this as merely the rantings of a few overt anti- Semites and anti-civil-liberties extremists. They articulate a legitimate concern that many Christians say privately: their children have learned that Christmas is about buying-and the person with the most expensive gifts wins!

 There is a beautiful spiritual message underlying Christmas that has universal appeal: the hope that gets reborn in moments of despair, the light that gets re-lit in the darkest moments of the year, is beautifully symbolized by the story of a child born of a teenage homeless mother who had to give birth in a manger because no one would give her shelter, and escaping the cruelty of Roman imperial rule and its local surrogate Herod who already knew that such a child would grow up to challenge the entire imperialist system. To celebrate that vulnerable child as a symbol of hope that eventually the weak would triumph over the rule of the arrogant and powerful is a spiritual celebration with strong analogies to our Jewish Chanukah celebration which also celebrates the victory of the weak over the powerful. And many other spiritual traditions around the world have similar celebrations at this time of year.

 The loss of this message, its subversion into a frenetic orgy of consumption, rightly disturbs Christians and other people of faith.

 Yet this transformation is not a result of Jewish parents wanting to protect their children from being forced to sing Christmas carols in public school, or secularists sending Seasons Greeting cards. It derives, instead, from the power of the capitalist marketplace, operating through television, movies and marketers, to drum into everyone's mind the notion that the only way to be a decent human being at this time of year is to buy and buy more. Thus the altruistic instinct to give, which could take the form of giving of our time, our skills, and our loving energies to people we care about, gets transformed and subverted into a competitve frenzy of consumption.

 Not surprisingly, the Christian Right is unwilling to challenge the capitalist marketplace-because their uncritical support for corporate power is precisely what they had to offer the Right to become part of the conservative coalition. Their loyalty to conservative capitalist economics trumps for them their commitment to serving God. But for those of us who want to prevent a new surge of anti-Semitism and assaults on the first amendment, our most effective path is to acknowledge what is legitimate in the Christians' concern- and lead it into a powerful spiritual critique of the ethos of selfishness and materialism fostered by our economic arrangements. It's time for our liberal and progressive Christian leaders and neighbors to stand up against on behalf of Jews and on behalf of their own highest spiritual vision--and challenge the real Christmas thieves!

 Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun Magazine www.Tikkun.org, and author of Spirit Matters: Global Healing and the Wisdom of the Soul.www.tikkun.org

The Chronicle has it all for you here.

Things turned ugly after the stock market crashed on Oct. 29, 1929. The Great Depression of the 1930s ensued. Billions of dollars were lost as banks and businesses went belly up. Millions of people were suddenly out of work, living in poverty -- or close to it -- and standing in bread lines for handouts of food to feed their families.

 By 1934, many elderly people did not have enough money to support themselves.

 As the economic crisis deepened, so did the country's discontent. Calls for change seemed to come from every corner.

 One popular idea borrowed from the principles of "social insurance" that had been adopted in Germany in 1889. It stressed the government's responsibility to provide for citizens' economic security.

 But President Hoover, believing the situation would right itself, prescribed little more for an ailing nation than charity and voluntary relief efforts that did not quite get off the ground. Few people had anything to give.

 Historic change came in 1932. Voters denied Hoover a second term and elected Franklin D. Roosevelt. The Democratic challenger appealed to the "forgotten man" by promising a "new deal" to solve the crisis. He pushed for a Social Security system in which workers would contribute toward their future economic security through taxes paid while they worked.

It's worth reading the whole thing. I sure hope Condi reads it to President Bush.

Costco Chief Executive Officer Jim Sinegal, 68, is a Democrat who says President Bush's $1.7 trillion in tax cuts unfairly benefit the wealthy. He opposed the Iraq war and supports Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts for president. And he's the only chief executive of a company in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index to donate money to independent political groups formed to oust Bush, Internal Revenue Service records show.

And...

[Costco] pays hot-dog vendors as much as $16 an hour, and the lowest wage it pays is $10 an hour.

OK, I still believe in shopping at my local stores, and Costco stores make me a little nuts when I'm there (why do so many people seem hellbent on running each other over with their shopping carts?) But it's nice to know at least one big box store out there has a conscience.

Remember those great Christmas songs of yore? Who can stop humming "City sidewalk steadfast clime" this time of year? Or "Grand hotel pout twice"? Or that all-time classic, "Thumpetty christmas parades"?

Some MIT folks with too much time and computing power on their hands force-fed their system "as much Christmas music as it could handle. When it was done it synthesized these sixteen new timeless classics." The result is "A Singular Christmas". Alas, the songs seem to be Slashdotted right now, but I'm going to check back later. I don't think I can resist the sound of "Cherry misfortune."

Updated to add: still no luck downloading the songs, but perhaps the best part of all is the revised Christmas song lyrics that Slashdot readers have come up with!

The good news is that a certain annoying radio ad is no longer being played ad nauseum on Air America Radio. ("For dignity!")

The bad news is that it seems to have been replaced by ads for Ready.gov, in which a voice solemnly intones warnings to come up with a safety plan for your business, your family, and your dear, small, fuzzy, every-so-vulnerable doggies, before terrorists come and destroy everything. (I guess it's supposed to distract us from the fact that the Department of Homeland Security is in underfunded, un-headed shambles.)

From Salon.com/Joe Conason:

...An internal FBI memo indicates that the directive to discard traditional restraints came from the very highest civilian official in the Pentagon: Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

That revealing memo is dated May 10, 2004, a time when the Abu Ghraib revelations were humiliating the United States before the entire world. An e-mail, it is addressed to FBI counterterrorism officer Thomas J. Harrington from an agent whose name is redacted (along with much else), and its subject is captioned "Instructions to GTMO [Guantánamo] Interrogators." The memo's obvious purpose is to set down, for the record, the FBI's opposition to the Pentagon's use of coercive and abusive methods when questioning the Guantánamo detainees. It describes the FBI's fundamental disagreement over interrogation tactics with Gen. Geoffrey Miller and Gen. Michael Dunlavey, then the military commanders at Guantánamo Bay.

"I will have to do some digging into old files," the unnamed author begins. "We did advise each supervisor that went to GTMO to stay in line with Bureau policy and not deviate from that ... I went to GTMO ... We had also met with Generals Dunlevy & Miller explaining our position (Law Enforcement Techniques) vs. DoD [Department of Defense]. Both agreed the Bureau has their way of doing business and DoD has their marching orders from the SecDef [Secretary of Defense]. Although the two techniques [of interrogation] differed drastically, both Generals believed they had a job to accomplish."

The e-mail goes on to recall how, during the questioning of one prisoner, the Pentagon interrogators wanted to "pursue expeditiously their methods" to "get more out of him ... We were given a so-called deadline to use our traditional methods."

Hey, even the Republicans are turning against the guy.

In recent days, conservative GOP Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Chuck Hagel of Nebraska raised public concerns about Rumsfeld's management of the war. William Kristol, a former Republican White House aide and a leading conservative commentator, and Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf, senior commander during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, also have offered harsh indictments. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a prominent moderate, criticized the Pentagon on Thursday for providing inadequate armor protection for troops in Iraq.

Republicans have been largely supportive of President Bush's Iraqi policies. But there appears to be growing Republican concern about the conduct of the war.

Perhaps he'll retire soon. For his health. Yeah, that's the ticket...

And I have to confess I still don't get it. But Paul Krugman does. And he's not happy about it.

...The public hasn't been let in on two open secrets:

Privatization dissipates a large fraction of workers' contributions on fees to investment companies.

It leaves many retirees in poverty.

Decades of conservative marketing have convinced Americans that government programs always create bloated bureaucracies, while the private sector is always lean and efficient. But when it comes to retirement security, the opposite is true. More than 99 percent of Social Security's revenues go toward benefits, and less than 1 percent for overhead. In Chile's system, management fees are around 20 times as high. And that's a typical number for privatized systems.

These fees cut sharply into the returns individuals can expect on their accounts. In Britain, which has had a privatized system since the days of Margaret Thatcher, alarm over the large fees charged by some investment companies eventually led government regulators to impose a "charge cap." Even so, fees continue to take a large bite out of British retirement savings.

A reasonable prediction for the real rate of return on personal accounts in the U.S. is 4 percent or less. If we introduce a system with British-level management fees, net returns to workers will be reduced by more than a quarter. Add in deep cuts in guaranteed benefits and a big increase in risk, and we're looking at a "reform" that hurts everyone except the investment industry.

In last week's column, Krugman said:

If Mr. Bush were to say in plain English that his plan to solve our fiscal problems is to borrow trillions, put the money into stocks and hope for the best, everyone would denounce that plan as the height of irresponsibility. The fact that this plan has an elaborate disguise, one that would add considerably to its costs, makes it worse.

It's the Ownership Society. If he breaks it, does he buy it?

From The Australian...

A recipe for long life

PARIS: A diet rich in fish, fruit, vegetables and a daily glass of red wine could help people in wealthy countries extend their life span by five years or more, according to a new study.

Doctors projected the potential impact of the so-called Polymeal, inspired by the famous Mediterranean diet, on US health.

Using a computer model of the American adult population, they calculated the risk of heart disease would fall by 76 per cent, women would live five years longer on average and the life expectancy for men would rise by 6.6 years compared to those who did not follow the diet.

Their projections are based on previous research which identifies the success of specific foods in lowering blood pressure.

The Polymeal diet proposed in the study comprises fish, eaten four times a week; wine, amounting to 15 centilitres a day; dark chocolate (100g a day); fruit and vegetables (400g a day); garlic (2.7g a day) and almonds (68g a day).

 

So... fish? Fruit? Veggies and garlic? Chocolate and almonds? A glass of red wine? Every day? Oh, twist my arm, why don't you!

• My laptop breaking again, a scant month or so after I last sent it in for repairs (but luckily, an equally scant month before the warranty expires).
• Coworkers who want to have "a discussion" about simple changes when all they really need to do is tell me what to change and where.
• A certain diet pill ad on the radio. A "diet pill" IS NOT A LIFESTYLE!!! And just because 100,000 people in Abilene, Texas bought it doesn't prove anything. Didn't they all vote for Bush down there?
  
• President Bush.
• Too many damn ads on the radio.
• The pop-up blocker in the Yahoo toolbar. I can't figure out how to set it so it allows certain sites to pop up windows.
• People who interpret kindness as an opportunity to get a piece.
• The Iraq war and its pathetic apologists.
  
• Sales calls. Especially prerecorded sales calls.
  

OK, maybe I should take a deep breath and go get some chocolate.

Amazing cartoonist who also has cute cats...

Art and Design Prof. Phoebe Gloeckner isn’t afraid to speak her mind. Whether she’s penning an excoriating criticism of the comics community, illustrating a cross-section of a blowjob or telling the story of a murdered Mexican teenager, she’s got a lot to say on the subject besides what’s on the page. A cartoonist, writer and professional medical illustrator, Gloeckner accepted a position teaching figure drawing and comics in the School of Art and Design this term.

Full interview here

I believe they have a "space" they'd like to "fill".

The Chronicle has gone and done it again. "It" being messing up the comics page.

Phil Frank, the creator of the longtime Chronicle strip Farley, has teamed up with writer Joe Troise to create a new syndicated comic that taps into something we all have in common: We're all getting older and, as the saying goes, it beats the alternative.

Set in a retirement home, the Elderberries is about five friends who deal with the inevitability of their own aging process with a combination of wit and wordplay.

The new strip, which appears daily and Sunday, will replace Clear Blue Water, which never really caught on with readers. We hope that Elderberries will.

Elderberries is not really doing it for me so far, but I'm willing to give it time, because I like Phil Frank, and the title comes from a Monty Python movie. Sometimes strips just need time.

However, Clear Blue Water is also one of those strips that needs time to grow on you. My initial reaction was that the drawing style was very weak. However, as time has gone on, I've become fond of the characters, amused by the exchanges between the married couple at the heart of the strip, and caught up in the storylines (does their son really have autism? will the twins be born OK? Will Eve make it through her pregnancy without throwing something heavy at Manny? Is Fluff Boy really down with the fluff?

I will be reading Clear Blue Water online from now on, I guess. I also need to write to the Chronicle and express my ire (and my strong desire that they deep-six the puzzlingly unfunny Pearls Into Swine) rather than just bitch about it on my blog..

Our glorious governator never misses a chance to put a foot in it

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, speaking Tuesday to open an annual conference celebrating women's contributions to the state, dismissed California nurses who protested his health care policies as "special interests'' who are mad because "I kick their butt."

The offhand remark by the governor, in front of 10,000 people at the California Governor's Conference on Women and Children, drew a blistering reaction from the California Nurses Association, whose leaders said they will sue this week to stop Schwarzenegger's executive order weakening mandated nurse-to-patient ratios in the state's hospitals.

-----

The governor's opening speech was interrupted when about 15 nurses -- who had paid the $125 entrance fee to the one-day conference -- unfurled a banner inside the Long Beach Convention Center, held up signs and chanted "Safe Staffing Saves Lives.''

As the group was escorted out and continued to chant, Schwarzenegger tried to continue his talk about the contributions of California women.

"Pay no attention to those voices over there," he said. "They are the special interests. Special interests don't like me in Sacramento because I kick their butt."

With a laugh, the governor added, "I love them anyway.''

This was supposed to be Maria's day.

Shriver established what she hopes to be the annual Minerva Awards -- named after the goddess on the state seal -- to reward "inspirational" women of California who have made outstanding contributions to their communities. Shriver presented the awards Tuesday to Mimi Silbert of San Francisco, co- founder of the Delancey Street rehabilitation program for ex-convicts, Ana Deutsch, co-founder of the Program for Torture Victims, and Dr. Helene Brown, an advocate for cancer research.

"There just seemed to be no recognition of women in our state,'' Shriver said in an interview this week, adding that she wanted young people to realize that "people who do great things have a really tough time getting there.''

Maria, honey... it just seems that having your husband speak at a women's empowerment event is like having the pope speak at an event for survivors of priestly molestation. Offense meant.

From CNN:

U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld faced tough questioning Wednesday from troops about to be deployed to Iraq.

Soldiers in Kuwait peppered Rumsfeld with queries about the standard of equipment they would be using and about the Pentagon's "stop-loss" policy, which prevents troops from leaving the military service, even if they are eligible to retire or quit.

One soldier, identified by The Associated Press as Army Spc. Thomas Wilson of the 278th Regimental Combat Team, asked Rumsfeld why more military combat vehicles were not reinforced for battle conditions.

More precisely...

Army Spc. Thomas Wilson, a 31-year-old member of a Tennessee National Guard unit, asked Rumsfeld why vehicle armor is still scarce, nearly two years after the start of the war.

"Why do we soldiers have to dig through local landfills for pieces of scrap metal and compromised ballistic glass to up-armor our vehicles?" Wilson asked.

The question prompted shouts of approval and applause from the estimated 2,300 soldiers assembled in a hangar in Kuwait to hear Rumsfeld.

His wife is unsurprised.

Regina Wilson wasn't entirely surprised to see her husband, a guardsman bound for Iraq, on television Wednesday challenging Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld with a tough question.

"He is always like that," she said. "I don't think he understands the concept of biting one's tongue. It wouldn't matter if it was Bush himself standing there. He would have dissed him the same."

I'm sure she was also unsurprised that Rummy's answer sucked.

"As you know, you have to go to war with the Army you have, not the Army you want," Rumsfeld said.

He added, "You can have all the armor in the world on a tank, and it can [still] be blown up."

Remember when Michael Dukakis was sunk by his tepid answer to a question about the death penalty, and his feelings about it if his wife were to be murdered?

Maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part, but I think this may have been such a moment for Donald. It's always been clear to some of us that He Just Doesn't Get It. Now maybe the Fox News watchers will see it too.

Remember back in the 1980s and 1990s, how right-wingers would complain about P.C. language, P.C. academia, etc. etc.? Well, the show is now on the other foot (which is probably in the other mouth.) Apparently, if you are a Middle East studies professor, and you don't focus exclusively on terrorism, you should be discussed with much disdain. It's just "lunacy" that they picked Juan Cole as their president!

But as with all MESA conferences, one learns the most about the organization not by what these politicized scholars choose to laud or disparage, but by what they leave out altogether. Despite the undeniable historical significance of the last three years, and the fact that approximately fifty million Muslims have been freed from unquestionably horrific tyranny, the term "liberation" does not appear in the program. Not even belittled within quotation marks.

As far as MESA is concerned, the oppression of Arabs and Muslims remains paramount, but the end of 25 years of oppression doesn’t even rate a "thematic conversation." America’s Middle East historians remain perfectly willing to let history pass them by.

So basically.... they aren't using the correct terminology? All their papers should be titled things like "Why Do Arabs Keep Blowing Shit Up: An Inquiry"?

Regarding Juan Cole, way at the bottom of the posting, in the comment threads, is this:

As a former staff member of Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, I can tell you that Juan Cole's observations on Shia Iraq, his translations of Arab newspapers and news from his sources in Najaf and Karbala were read and valued by many CPA staffers.

So what if he said that Muqtada al Sadr's followers were a "movement of the poor?" Al Sadr's followers WERE poor. Cole also said that al Sadr was probably mentally ill: he's not a fan of al Sadr.

Telling it like it is: the new dishonesty, apparently.

Paul Krugman comes back from his writing vacation long enough to warn:

Social Security is a government program that works, a demonstration that a modest amount of taxing and spending can make people's lives better and more secure. And that's why the right wants to destroy it.

What kind of shape is Social Security really in? Pretty good shape, it turns out.

Right now the revenues from the payroll tax exceed the amount paid out in benefits. This is deliberate, the result of a payroll tax increase - recommended by none other than Alan Greenspan - two decades ago. His justification at the time for raising a tax that falls mainly on lower- and middle-income families, even though Ronald Reagan had just cut the taxes that fall mainly on the very well-off, was that the extra revenue was needed to build up a trust fund. This could be drawn on to pay benefits once the baby boomers began to retire.

The grain of truth in claims of a Social Security crisis is that this tax increase wasn't quite big enough. Projections in a recent report by the Congressional Budget Office (which are probably more realistic than the very cautious projections of the Social Security Administration) say that the trust fund will run out in 2052. The system won't become "bankrupt" at that point; even after the trust fund is gone, Social Security revenues will cover 81 percent of the promised benefits. Still, there is a long-run financing problem.

But it's a problem of modest size. The report finds that extending the life of the trust fund into the 22nd century, with no change in benefits, would require additional revenues equal to only 0.54 percent of G.D.P. That's less than 3 percent of federal spending - less than we're currently spending in Iraq. And it's only about one-quarter of the revenue lost each year because of President Bush's tax cuts - roughly equal to the fraction of those cuts that goes to people with incomes over $500,000 a year.

Given these numbers, it's not at all hard to come up with fiscal packages that would secure the retirement program, with no major changes, for generations to come.

The right are playing a game with accounting to make it look like there's a crisis, when, for once, there isn't... the crisis will come years from now, when some future market crash takes out everyone's retirement savings. Lovely...

From the NY Times

A classified cable sent by the Central Intelligence Agency's station chief in Baghdad has warned that the situation in Iraq is deteriorating and may not rebound any time soon, according to government officials.

The cable, sent late last month as the officer ended a yearlong tour, presented a bleak assessment on matters of politics, economics and security, the officials said. They said its basic conclusions had been echoed in briefings presented by a senior C.I.A. official who recently visited Iraq.

The officials described the two assessments as having been "mixed," saying that they did describe Iraq as having made important progress, particularly in terms of its political process, and credited Iraqis with being resilient.

But over all, the officials described the station chief's cable in particular as an unvarnished assessment of the difficulties ahead in Iraq. They said it warned that the security situation was likely to get worse, including more violence and sectarian clashes, unless there were marked improvements soon on the part of the Iraqi government, in terms of its ability to assert authority and to build the economy.

Together, the appraisals, which follow several other such warnings from officials in Washington and in the field, were much more pessimistic than the public picture being offered by the Bush administration before the elections scheduled for Iraq next month, the officials said.

No doubt if Bush could pronounce "nattering nabobs of negativism", he would utter the phrase disdainfully... but a purge is worth a thousand words.

Via BoingBoing, a permit dispute in my hometown, with several twists. The homeowner who wants to build an addition on her house is the mother of the founding editor of Wired. The neighbors (and others) are opposed, saying the plans would ruin a historical treasure. More here and here and here.

Berkeley is a notoriously difficult place to do building-related things in... on the other hand, there's definitely more to this story than meets the eye, and the remodel seems to be more the son's idea than the mother's, full-page ad in the paper to the contrary. (O.K. Michael, you win!)

From the International Herald Tribune:

Senator John McCain declined on Sunday to endorse the leadership of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and questioned whether the planned increase in U.S. forces in Iraq would provide enough security for the country's elections on Jan. 30.

The Pentagon announced plans last week to restore U.S. forces to their highest level since the invasion, but McCain said even 150,000 troops might not be enough.

Also, McCain said, "I want to work with Secretary Rumsfeld, because he will be the secretary of defense for an undetermined length of time."

Asked if that was a vote of confidence in Rumsfeld, the senator said: "No, it's not."

Not to be bitter, but if McCain had declined to stump for a certain Republican incumbent, or had, oh, I don't know, maybe friggin' mentioned this concern in September or October, Rumsfeld would, just maybe, be out of a job in January. Not that I'm bitter.

Not bitter.

No.

La la la la la la la la la...

Proposal Would Hit Blue State Taxpayers

Some conservatives want to kill the U.S. deduction for state and local taxes. Californians and New Yorkers would feel the strongest sting.

December 5, 2004

WASHINGTON — As President Bush lays the groundwork for a possible overhaul of the U.S. tax code, one option under consideration would deal its biggest financial blow to citizens of blue states such as California and New York.

Some conservative activists are urging the Bush administration to scrap the federal deduction for state and local taxes as part of a broader plan to revamp the nation's tax system.

Although the proposal would hurt some taxpayers in nearly every state, it would hit hardest in states with higher-than-average income levels and bigger-than-average state and local tax burdens. High on the list are a number of blue states — those that were carried by Democrat Sen. John F. Kerry in last month's presidential election.

Taxpayers in California and New York, for example, which have top state income tax rates of 9.3% and 6.5% respectively, would be highly affected; residents of Florida and Texas, which have no state income taxes, much less so.

"There's no question this effort would punish blue states," said Rep. Robert T. Matsui (D-Sacramento), a member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee. Over time, he said, it could force state and local governments to cut expenditures.

That could happen if taxpayers, stung by the higher tax burden that would come from losing the deduction for state and local tax payments, demand a cut in local and state tax rates and become unwilling to approve any increases.

Supporters of the change insist the disproportionate effect on blue states is a coincidence, but they acknowledge that the proposal could hurt most in states that voted against Bush.

"Let me put it like this: It certainly isn't something that's a discouragement," said one prominent conservative. "Yes, we talked about this. The fact that it hits blue states is not something that's been missed among Republicans."

But in a political complication, some blue states that would be hit hardest by the tax change are led by Republicans. If the White House adopts the proposal, it could create a rift with some of the GOP's biggest stars in those states, such as Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and New York Gov. George E. Pataki, among others.

Schwarzenegger's office declined to comment on the proposal. But California State Controller Steve Westly, a Democrat, said it would amount to a hidden tax increase for millions of California taxpayers, who already pay $58 billion a year more to the federal government than they get back in services.

"Simply put, it would be yet another poke in the eye from the federal government to California," said Westly.

It remains unclear whether the administration will adopt the proposal. Some administration and congressional advisors said they believed the idea had been floated as a trial balloon to see how much support or opposition it attracted.

Full story from the L.A. Times

In my post about the misleading sex-ed programs being funded with our tax dollars, I didn't get into the misinformation about birth control. Andrew Sullivan has a link to what he calls "a mild and partial debunking" of Rep. Waxman's report.

The debunking consists of two main pieces of "proof" that abortion is harmful. One is a link to an article about the high rate of infertility among women in Russia. The other is a mention of a couple of studies which found that women who had abortions had a higher rate of depression and suicide attempts than women who gave birth.

Read the first article, and you'll find that those women in Russia were victims of a Soviet-era policy to use abortions as birth control. I don't remember hearing great things about the Soviet medical system, either. Now that normal birth control methods are available and encouraged, the abortion rate is dropping.

The second point is harder for me argue, because I don't really know how to read and interpret medical studies (and not all the papers are available online.) But it seems to me that a woman who seeks an abortion because of health problems, or relationship troubles, or just generally feeling she's not ready to have a child, might already be somewhat depressed. To feel like you're ready for a child, you have to be in a good place in your life, no?

There's no evidence of causality here, and plenty of other explanations.

However, for those who are eager for evidence that abortion is bad bad bad, and this site seems to belong to one of them, these questions don't seem to come up.

Via ABC news in Australia...

US military review panels can use evidence obtained through torture in deciding the fate of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, the US Government has conceded.

Lawyers acting for Australian detainees in Cuba have called on the Australian Government to renounce the practice.

About 70 years ago, the United States Supreme Court ruled evidence gained through torture was inadmissible.

Deputy associate Attorney-General, Brian Boyle, has told the District Court in Washington DC, that the Guantanamo review panels are allowing such evidence.

And from another article...

The United States Navy is investigating photos posted on the Internet that appear to depict abuse of Iraqi detainees during their capture in May 2003 by Navy special forces, a Navy spokesman said on Friday.

At least a dozen photos showing bloodied detainees were handed over to officials at the Naval Special Warfare Command at Coronado, California, by an Associated Press reporter who found them on a commercial photo-sharing website.

The photographs, posted by a woman who said her husband brought them home from Iraq, appear to show the aftermath of raids on civilian homes, the Associated Press (AP) reported.

The AP reported that Navy SEALs were seen sitting on hooded and bound detainees, holding a gun to a detainee's bloodied head, and placing a boot on the chest of a prone man.

Other photos showed grinning US personnel sitting or lying atop three hooded prisoners in the bed of a utility, the AP reported.

To reiterate: bleh.

It's been all over the news that Microsoft has entered the blogging business with its new offering, MSN Spaces As usual, though, there are issues. Predictably, if you don't use Microsoft products on a PC, you won't have access to many of the features like uploading photos or displaying your music lists.

Then there are reports that the user agreement requires you to sign over your soul... er, your content.

For materials you post or otherwise provide to Microsoft related to the MSN Web Sites (a "Submission"), you grant Microsoft permission to (1) use, copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, reproduce, edit, modify, translate and reformat your Submission, each in connection with the MSN Web Sites, and (2) sublicense these rights, to the maximum extent permitted by applicable law. Microsoft will not pay you for your Submission."

And to top it all off, they censor your words. Poorly. Some enterprising souls experimented with different blog titles, and found that...

(1) BoingBoing's readers said the title "Corporate Whore" was censored. My attempt at "Corporate Whore Chronicles" met the same result, but "Corporate Prostitute Chronicles" worked fine. Hooray for synonyms with more syllables!

(2) I figured anything in the original list of seven dirty words banned by the FCC would be off-limits: shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits. Most of that proved to be true, as did other potent cusswords which would likely cause license problems for a television or radio station. But a test blog titled "Tits for Tats" passed without incident. Off to a good start, with no unneccesarily broad language policing. Chalk one up for MSN Spaces!

(3) More good news. "World of Poop" is just fine. And the rather racy "Butt Sex is Awesome" made it through, as did the overtly naughty "Dick, Balls, Boobies, Goddammit." The test blog titled "My Craptacular Life" was free to do its bloggy thing, unhindered by prudish vocabulary cops. Even "Internet Explorer is Crappy" was welcomed with open arms. Now that's free speech!

(4) Uh-oh. My attempt to create an MSN Spaces blog called "Pornography and The Law" is met with rude red text advising me to can the profanity. So, if I were a law student who wanted to start a blog about the history of obscenity law in the United States, I'd be shit out of luck.

(5) Very bad news for fans of Russian literature. The blog title "Lolita is a novel by Vladimir Nabokov" is deemed inappropriate, as are any titles I try to create with the 1955 book's name.

(6) You may recall our previously-approved blog title, "Butt Sex is Awesome." That name was fine, but MSN Spaces puts the kibosh on "Anal Health for People who Think Buttsex is Awesome" ("anal" was the problem word here; "buttsex," "butt-sex," and "butt sex" all passed MS-muster.)

(7) "Smoking Crack: A How-To Guide For Teens." This wholesome little morsel, suggested by my NPR "Day to Day" producer Steve Proffitt, also made the grade.

I was thinking about this, and I realized that I quite self-consciously censor myself on my own more effectively than Microsoft ever could. I'm all too aware that anybody can read a public blog, and the results can be frightening.

I think it's the ownership thing, more than anything else. I love using LiveJournal, and TypeSpace looks very appealing. But I like the control of having my own installation of blogging software. I like being able to go in and change stuff. I like knowing that my blogging company won't suddenly decide that it's not a profitable market for them (