The Weekly Weigh-in -- Foresight is 20/200

Yes, as this nomination thing really comes to head here, I think it's fair to say that my prognostications of only two months ago may prove to be way way off. Then again, that was what a lot of people were thinking, and, while the rather distasteful general election contest I then saw as likely may not come to pass, I do think I'd picked up on a few of the things that might keep it from doing so.

But let's get specific, shall we? In short, Clinton and Giuliani's respective roads to a nominationjust look a heck of a lot less clear than they did back then. Indeed, they look downright treacherous. In fact, the way things look now, I'd say there's a pretty solid chance that ol' Rudy will be nothing but an afterthought in a month or two. Put simply, it seems like his somewhat odious personal life, coupled with the fact that he wasn't much of a blood-red Republican anyway (oh, and maybe that the whole terrorism/war issue, upon which almost all of his supposed appeal was based, has, somewhat inexplicably, become far less of an important issue for primary voters), has finally caught up with him, and a month or two too soon for his lofty ambitions. Of course, his strategy for a while has been to ignore the first state or two and hope that no one else can pick up the momentum from wins there to stop him in bigger states where he was (until recently, at least) more popular than all the other contenders. And, that might yet work, but, given the way he's been sinking like a rock, polling wise, in even those states (Florida, for example) suggests that he will not be saved by them.

But, then again, things are still incredibly fluid in the whole Republican race. As there were hints of even back in October, the Right-wingers have been rushing towards Huckabee as he seems to be the only semi-viable option who isn't Giuliani, the Mormon, McCain, or some other RINO ("Republican in Name Only"). At least in Iowa, that is. There, I think it will be extremely difficult for Romney to stop Huckabee's surge, especially if he keeps making mistakes -- like saying he "saw" his father march with Martin Luther King, and then having to say he meant "saw" in a "figurative" sense because, well, that probably never really happened -- that point out the fact that he's, y'know, a liar. So, yeah, I see Huckabee taking Iowa pretty convincingly, in spite of the numerous negative stories that are now starting to surface about him (more on that later).

But, apparently the good people of New Hampshire don't have much use for Bible-thumping hicks, so Huckabee doesn't look like he's got a great shot there (unless, of course, he gets a huge boost from an Iowa win). As it stands, Romney still has the lead in polls in the Granite State. But, who's that, roaring up on the outside?! . . . Why, it's 98-years-young John McCain, making a last-ditch sprint for the prize that his, ahem, illegitimate black baby (Karl Rove was the mother -- go figure) kept him from claiming way back in 2000. Seems that with Romney faltering, folks who don't find the Huck-ba-crite too appealing are now giving the old man a seventh look. Coluld it be that he will ride a second New Hampshire win all the way to the White House? Well, probably not, but in any case, it looks fairly likely that the winner of Iowa and New Hampshire will not be one and the same individual, which suggests that things on the Republican side could remain up in the air for quite some time. And so, there might yet be some hope for hizonner Giuliani's big-state plan yet.

But, that's not what I'm predicitng (yes, I still dare to hazard wild, meaningless guesses). No, I think that, as nasty as he apparently is himself, and as unlikely as it might have seemed only few months ago, good ol' Mike "Gomer" Huckabee, will probably get the nomination, if only because I can't imagine any of the other contenders, with all their flaws (both utterly real and simply "in the eyes of" typical Republican voters), being able to stop his momentum. He is, far more than any of the others, truly one of them . . . even if he has helped release a murderer from prison, taken money from cigarette makers while in office (uh, see that same link above), helped protect his son from getting prosecuted for animal cruelty, helped a drunk driver get out of jail in exchange for political donations, and . . . well, the list, apparently, goes on and on. But golly, he shure does love him some Jesus, so, y'know, he's basically the perfect Republican candidate.

Meanwhile, things are almost as wacky with the Dummocrats (heh heh, "Dummocrats") . . . Seems like the once "inevitable" Hillary is suddenly looking a lot more evitable. Indeed, she just may not come out of Iowa with a win. Obama has surged, and what's even wackier, even John Edwards looks to have a pretty good shot -- in the Buckeye state, at least (and if he can win there, well, who knows?). In short, it's looking like a three-way race down to the wire, after Hillary had a huge lead only a couple months ago. As it is, I'd say her odds of still getting the nomination are considerably better than Giuliani's, but that said, I wouldn't say they're significantly better than Obama's or more than mildly better than Edwards' at this point. She's been trending downward recently, while the two guys have been on the rise. She may be able to halt her slide sufficiently to pull it out, but frankly, I hope not. I think both Edwards and Obama would be better candidates in a general election, and since my main hope (such as it is) is that one Dummocrat or another will win next November, I've definitely got a preference for those two.

The good news, far as that goes, and as I've noted before, is that I don't think the eventual Republican winner, whoever it may be, will have good odds of beating the eventual Dem nom, whoever that is. And that includes the Huck-ba-crite, especially as the aforementioned skeletons would get far more scrutiny in the long, long general campaign. That said, I would definitely feel a lot more relaxed about things if it's Obama or Edwards against Huckabee or whoever, given Hillary's own extremely high negatives.

In any case, the one thing I'm certain of, with only a week and a half to go before Iowa votes, is that no prediction at this point would be anything but guesswork. It is just too jumbled up to say anything with much certainty. Which, when it comes to the flaming-car-crash spectacle that is politics, should make things fairly exciting in the weeks to come.

My own preference, to say it again, would be for an Obama-McCain matchup (especially since McCain, for all his past hypocrisies, is the only Republican contender I could actually stomach being the next president -- though my gut has built up an incredibly strong tolerance in the last few years for some reason), but I guess I'll just have to call that an Xmas wish at this point.

And that being said, I think I'll hold off on commenting further on the whole wacky process, at least until after the Iowa results come in. In the meantime, I just wanna sit back and watch the flaming wreckage :^) . . .

Weekly Weigh-in - Shams and Charlatans

[Heh heh -- I actually wrote this post last weekend but hadn't gotten around to posting it yet because I still wanted to add some links. Anyhow, I still haven't added the links -- and it's a little too late this evening to do that -- but I wanted to go ahead and post it anyway...I've got a little more commentary on this at the end of the post...]

-- As news broke this week about the agreement to think about someday reaching a peace agreement for the Middle East, I was mildly amazed, yet again, by how the media continues to treat these things as if they were anything other than completely pointless political theater. I don't wanna dwell on this - frankly, it doesn't deserve more than a passing mention - but anyone who thinks that whatever Abbas, Bush, and Olmert agreed to will amount to anything substantial vis-a-vis peace between Israel and the Palestinians is - how shall I put this? - an idiot. Moreso, because not one of those three "leaders" is in any position domestically to dictate the shape of future negotiations. Nonetheless, the media in general treated their b.s. summit like it was the big news of the day. Collective stupidity.


-- On another subject, watching the Republican debate the other day made me realize that I despise Mitt Romney nearly as much as I do Giuliani. Or maybe "realize" is not the word. Maybe it just confirmed it for me.


Anyone who knows even a little bit about Giuliani's extremely shady friends will understand why I detest the little creep. Frankly, it would be hard for anyone to sink as low in my estimation, but Romney is certainly taking a shot at it. One need only look at clips from his debates when he ran for senator and governor and then listen to what he says now to see him as the lowliest of political weasels.


For example, it was only in 2002 - yes, only five years ago - that Romney basically insisted that he was pro-choice and would never, ever, never change his support for a woman's right to an abortion. Indeed, he struck an extremely sanctimonious tone when his opponent dared to question his commitment to that position. Yet now, after he's decided that he's pro-life (on account of he figures he has to be to win the GOP nomination), he acts as though he is equally offended when someone questions his commitment to pro-life policies. And it's not just on abortion that Romney has taken vastly different opinions in the past to the ones he now professes.


In short, he is a liar, pure and simple (that is, an even more brazen one than his competitors). He has no convictions whatsoever. His only interest is in power. Well, Joseph Smith, at least, would be proud.


All of this said, it does make me a little more concerned for the Dems chances of winning the Whitehouse next fall. Truth is, I would like nothing better than to see either Romney or Giuliani take the nomination because I am fairly sure that either would sink in the general election when closer scrutiny is given to the things they have said and done in the past. As it stands, however, that scrutiny may be coming early enough to prevent both of them from even getting the nomination. Huckabee, who seems more and more like the likely alternative, doubtless has baggage of his own (google the name Wayne Dumond, for one thing), but, as far as I know, it really can't compare with the dead weight that Giuliani and Romney are dragging behind them, and Huckabee, being more genuinely conservative (or so it would seem), should be far better able to unite the right side of the electorate in a way that could be more problematic for the Democratic nominee, especially if it's Clinton. I'd still like to think that people wouldn't want to elect some bible-thumping Huck-ba-crite, but if it's a choice between a clearly cynical, unlikable former first lady and a relatively charming former lard-ass, I'd certainly be a little more worried.


As it is, I kinda hope one of the two scumbags - um, talking about Romney and Giuliani again here - will actually manage to hold off Huckabee for the nomination. Given their amazing negatives, I'd think that would almost make it a lock for the Democrat, even if it is Clinton.

[So...that little parenthetical about Wayne Dumond...looks like now that Huckabee's aiming for the lead, turns out he's getting a little scrutiny of his own. And it's revealing some pretty ugly things about the Dumond case. Besides the fact that Huckabee pushed for the release of Dumond, a convicted rapist, from prison, and Dumond then went on, after his release, to rape and murder another woman -- all of which I knew -- it now sounds as though Huckabee has repeatedly lied about his efforts to get Dumond released, and -- this is the really crazy part -- that Huckabee pushed for the release at the behest of a bunch of right-wing Bill Clinton haters who thought Dumond was innocent (or something?) because one of his victims was a distant relative of Clinton! Whaaaaa? Yup, it is some super crazy sounding shit, but the info I read on it sounds pretty much on the up and up...In any case, it's definitely clear that Huckabee pushed for Dumond's release, in spite of Dumond's victims telling him that Dumond would attack again if released, and Dumond went on, as those victims had said he would, to rape and murder another victim...Looks like Huckabee has his own Willie Horton.

And the upshot of it all, at least in broad political terms? Well, I'm a lot less worried that the Democratic nominee, whoever it is, will have trouble beating the Republican nominee...That is, at least, assuming it's Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee, which it looks like it will be at this point (there really isn't enough time for anyone else to get the nom, it seems, unless it's that wacky old McCain, and I really don't think his odds are good). Looks all the top three Republican contenders have some really gnarly skeletons in their closets, so that should make things pretty easy for the Dem.]

The Weekly Weigh-in - Racism by Proxy

You may have heard about the recent "swiftboat" style attacks against Obama. There's the critique that he's not patriotic enough because he didn't put his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance. Besides the fact that this is about as close to a non-issue as one can get (and, by the by, the pledge is a jingoistic bit of idiocy better suited to a police state than the United States; I never say it), Obama pointed out that the photo in question was actually taken during the playing of the national anthem, not the pledge. Nonetheless, stupid people continue to ask him about it during his campaign stops.

More disturbing still, I think, is the email suggesting that Obama is some sort of closeted Muslim. Besides the fact, once again, that the charge has no basis in truth, the fact that it has gotten a fair amount of traction has forced me to rethink the race issue as it relates to Obama's candidacy. See, I have felt since before he announced that while there are doubtless some people out there who won't vote for Obama for the simple fact that they are racists, I figured that the majority of Americans were evolved enough, so to speak, that he could still win in spite of the troglodytes. And, I still believe that, so long as the attacks are transparently racist.

This "he's a Muslim" attack, though, as loathsome as it is, makes me wonder if Obama's adversaries haven't found a way, whether inadvertently or intentionally, to subtly make Obama's race an issue. Call it racism by proxy. See, they can't, successfully anyways, get people not to vote for him by calling him the N-word. Indeed, I like to think that might cause some people to vote for him who might not have otherwise, if only to take a stand, of sorts, agains racism. But, lots of people wouldn't have a problem with not voting for someone purely b/c he's a Muslim. And, come to think of it, that Obama feller kinda looks like one o' them Muslims - kinda brown, if you catch my drift...

So, in effect, I think the Muslim charge is a way to piggyback on some (perhaps subconcious in many cases) racist sentiments that some voters have, allowing people to attack Obama's skin color, in effect, withoout attacking it directly.

To put a finer point on it: obviously the charge rests to some degree on the fact that Obama was raised briefly in Indonesia and attended a school there that happened to be majority Muslim, but I don't think the charge would receive nearly the same attention, or any, really, if Obama were white. I mean, a white Muslim - who ever heard of such a thing? (And yes, I realize that there are white Muslims - I'm just trying to outline the thought process of some of the more manipulable voters.)

In the end, I still hope, and think, that enough people would reject this kind of demented attack that he could still win in the general, but, given the degree to which such scurrilous claims, in spite of being completely baseless, do sometimes stick with people, I have to admit that it makes me a little more concerned about his g. e. viability...

Meanwhile, more news recently that seems to suggest that the ole "Huck-ba-crite" might well be a serious contender come caucus time, with a sufficient number of religious conservatives coalescing around him to give Romney and Giuliani a run for their money. And, I also have to wonder if, given the length of this process and Republicans' general inablity to settle on a frontrunner, old McCain might not make a comeback after so many people (myself included) had pretty much written him off. Ultimately, I don't think he has enough time to get back in voters' good graces, but I do think there's a glimmer of hope. And, on a personal note, though I do think he's a hypocrite and an idiot for some of the things he's said and done, I have to admit that I would prefer McCain over all his (legitimate) Republican rivals. I mean, he still sucks, but the thought of him being president is not nearly as stomach-turning to me as the notion of a president Giuliani, Romney, or Hucakbee.

The Weekly Weigh-in -- The Enemy of My Enemy

So, Pakistan seems to be sliding ever closer to calamity. In fact, for the hundreds of activists who have been beaten and arrested in the past few days, things probably feel pretty calamitous already.

All of which -- surprise, surprise -- kind of puts the lie to Bush's endless platitudes about freedom and democracy being the aims of his foreign policy. Doing the only thing that it seems he can be counted on for doing, Bush and his cronies have successfully backed the United States into a corner in yet another Middle Eastern country. Having spoken at such length -- ad nauseam, if you will -- about his administration's dedication to spreading democracy, Bush and company can't very well just say nothing while Musharraf suspends the constitution, arrests the Supreme Court, and sends his soldiers out en masse to crack some skulls. At the same time, it's also true that Musharraf, as bad as he is, might be better than, well, democracy for the US, particularly if democracy would mean a radical Islamist government controlling the country's nuclear weaponry. But again, if Bush doesn't protest when a dictator is having people beaten in the streets, it kinda lets the world know that he was full of s*** when he said all that stuff about freedom (that is, to the extent that they don't know he's full of it already). Ah, what to do, what to do?

Well, apparently the answer for Bush, Rice, et al. is to cluck their tongues reproachfully but not make any serious efforts to punish Musharraf for his naughtiness, lest they inadvertently help to topple his government (which might happen anyway). Frankly, I doubt the world in general will fail to see the hypocrisy, particularly as it comes so close on the heels of the administration's far harsher language and actions against Burma's junta...but of course, the US isn't an ally of that repressive dictatorship.

At this point, though, I'm not sure what else the administration can do.

At other points, however, say starting around six and half years ago...Well, first of all, don't lie so egregiously about your motives and the allies you choose. Don't pretend that our military actions in the Middle East are all about spreading freedom when they're clearly not. People tend to see through that. Also, just because in the push and pull after 9/11 it might actually be expedient for the country to ally yourselves with a dictator here and there, don't fall all over yourself kissing said dictators asses and pretending they're something they aren't. Calling such people your "friend," as Bush has done with Musharraf, kind of makes you look a like a **** when your "friend" starts having his political opponents tortured.

But speaking again of those Middle East adventures, could it be that this is another area where if we hadn't taken our eye off the ball that is Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, things might not be so screwed up today? Like, maybe if we'd stuck to the utterly legitimate goal of wiping out the Taliban and al-Qaeda, not only would, say, bin Laden be dead or captured by now, but the Musharraf government, not having had to do so much of the military activities along its border for so many years now, might have a much stabler situation on its hands and be much better positioned to handle any internal opposition, particularly from Muslim extremists? Oh, and speaking of extremists, could it be that maybe, just maybe, by attacking a country that most of the world (rightfully) thought had nothing to do with 9/11, the administration might have increased the strength and numbers of radical Muslim groups in the Muslim world, including in Pakistan?

Just wondering.

A Little Loaded Language

So this article from msnbc.com about last night's Democratic debate uses the phrase "a gang assault" to describe the rest of the field's verbal attacks against Hillary Clinton. Is it just me, or is that kind of a loaded phrase to use in regards to the female front-runner vis-a-vis her male opponents? I don't think it's me.

Of course, I don't want to impute any particular intent to the writer because I find that even writers in the, ahem, esteemed field of professional journalism ain't always too bright. So, it might have just been a somewhat poorly chosen metaphor. If there was some slightly sneaky intent however, what might it have been? To garner some sympathy for the Senator by painting her male interlocutors as a gang of vicious thugs? There's no knowing for sure, but personally, I find such a phrase a bit overwrought and tendentious, whether or not it was intended to be.

In any case, it strikes me that these sort of linguistic explosives might be something to keep one's eye out for as the race progresses, particularly if Clinton advances, and it becomes a mano-a-...uh, womano kinda contest.

Weekly Weigh-in - What it is

Yesterday, I received some correspondence from a reader, and while I probably won't generally bother answering such things directly - preferring to let these posts speak for themselves - I haven't got anything I want to write about in particular today, and besides it might be useful to answer a question now so as to preempt the need to do more answering in the future.

So...this reader asks, "Do you think it's really good (journalistically speaking) to throw down an ad hominum [sic] such as 'that hypocrite Huckabee' without just a tiny bit of supporting evidence[?]"

Ah, where to begin? Well, first of all, I'm not a journalist in the typical sense. This is a blog, which means that I don't have to pretend, like MSM journalists do (because they are afraid of losing their precious "access"), to accept the phony pretexts of statements made by politicians and gov't officials. On the contrary, I can say what I damn well please without fear of any significant consequences because I am not obliged to be obsequious with the figures I write about. And so, somewhat absurdly, you will find far more truth in this blog - just as you will find more in comedy news shows like The Daily Show and The Colbert Report - than you will ever get from mainstream journalists.

Secondly, I actually do spend a decent amount of time researching the things I write about (and providing relevant links), and I don't feel like I should have to footnote or elaborate on everything little thing I say. If you feel like I've made an unsubstantiated claim, why not just substantiate it yourself? You've obviously got the Internet at your disposal, which means you have a hugely powerful tool for finding evidence yourself (assuming you can distinguish between facts and opinions, lies and truths, etc., etc.). Rest assured, anyways, that I have a good reasons for just about everything I say.

But, just to be extra helpful this one time...consider this clip from The Colbert Report (if the link doesn't work, search for "medium matters" on the Comedy Central video site). Obviously, no politician on either "side" should be obligated to defend or condemn the idiotic statements of private groups or individuals. But of course, huge numbers of Republicans, Huckabee included, blasted Democrats for not condemning Moveon.org's ill-considered ad but then cited free speech in defense of Limbaugh, just as lots of Democrats - also hypocrites - did the exact same thing, except with the nouns in a different order. So anyways, yeah, Huckabee is indeed a "Huck-ba-crite," just as Colbert was saying (though you're gonna have to be able to understand satire to not take him literally). Huckabee's typical-politician pandering to right-wing voters led him to make contradictory statements about situations that were essentially the same (except insofar as they were viewed by said right-wingers). Ergo, he is a hypocrite.

Which brings me to my final point. When are politicians not hypocrites? Name me one politician who isn't a two-faced opportunist, and I will happily dispel your delusion. Even when one comes along who somehow gets a reputation as a truth-teller, ala McCain with his "straight talk" in 2000, rest assured that it is only a matter of time before he shows his true (chameleon) colors, ala McCain kissing the thank-God-he's-dead Jerry Falwell's fat ass after having once called him and other evangelicals "agents of intolerance." In short, calling any politician a hypocrite is hardly something I should have to back up . On the contrary, you'd have far more cause to call for evidence if I had said "Huckabee isn't a hypocrite." I mean, c'mon, "politician" and "hypocrite" are practically synonyms, and anyone who has ever paid even a little attention to politics should know it.

But, if you genuinely need to have your eyes opened to the lies and chicanery of politicians, then just keep reading this blog. If you have the eyes to see, you will see...After all, that's kinda one of the main themes here...y'know, "bloated body politic" and all that? The deep-rooted ugliness and human folly of it all is pretty much right there in front of us on a daily basis. One simply has to choose between reality and fantasy. Granted, I know that for most people the latter is preferable - there is some comfort in it - but this blog is more about the former, and ultimately I do think that facing it will do us more good than denial.

The Priest in Giuliani's Closet

Okay, so only a few days ago, I speculated about the race for the Republican presidential nomination, predicting that hizonner Rudolph Giuliani would probably take the thing only to lose in the general. But, not being a complete fool I threw in the old caveat that anything can happen with so much time left to go. A story I learned about this very day demonstrates the wisdom of that cliche.

Turns out that Giuliani is bosom buddies with a defrocked priest accused of multiple counts of child molestation. And when I say bosom buddies, it's not an exaggeration. The guy, one Monsignor Alan Placa, was apparently the best man at Giuliani's first wedding, and then officiated at his second one. They were in high school and a college frat together, and when Placa was forced to give up his priestly duties, Giuliani promptly gave him a job with his consulting firm.

But let's get a bit more specific. The ABC report says that the Suffolk County grand jury that looked into the allegations against Placa (along with slew of others against other priests in his diocese) believed the accusers, and that Placa only escaped a criminal trial because the statute of limitations had run out. Perhaps even more disturbingly, for both Catholics and Giuliani supporters, it turns out that Placa was for years one of the church's main officials charged with dealing with allegations of abuse against priests, which he did, according to the grand jury, by means of "deception and intimidation." And so, even if one were to doubt the abuse allegations against Placa (and I personally see little reason to do so), it seems clear that he was, at the very least, a protector of clerical abusers, cut from the same mold as Bernard Law and Roger Mahoney. And that, as far as I'm concerned, is just about as despicable.

What is most bizarre about this story, however, is that Giuliani has apparently known about these allegations for some time now and yet has done nothing to distance himself from Placa. Indeed, he defended the man in a campaign appearance just last week.

Well, Giuliani apparently has a reputation for being deeply loyal to his cronies (remind you of anyone?), but I'd say he runs the risk of destroying the whole enterprise if he doesn't throw Placa under the campaign bus (ala Romney with Larry Craig) as quickly as he can. Only a couple weeks ago I explained how it was already apparent that Giuliani surrounds himself with some real dirtbags, but I was only talking about belligerent, racist neocons then -- most Republican voters wouldn't have a problem with that. But a pedophile priest?! Good luck with that one, Rudy. Or wait, not good luck. Only a f****** idiot and complete a****** would defend and pay a guy when there are credible allegations of child abuse against him. So you stick with him, Mr. Mayor, and watch your f****** campaign implode...

Only problem with that would be that it would kinda mess up my predictions. Maybe the Huckster's odds aren't looking so bad, after all.

But, then, I doubt Giuliani is that much of an idiot. I imagine this Placa guy will be persona non grata tout suite if the mayor's advisers have even half a brain among them. Even still, this will be another black mark (and rightly so, in this case) against Giuilani in the minds of far right primary voters. He probably shouldn't get too comfortable, then, with his front-runner status.

Monday Special - Echo, Echo, Echo

So, I was reading the news earlier today, when I came across this interesting piece by Jonathan Alter. While the main thesis of it was certainly a bit different than my last post on Sunday, it was suspiciously similar on a lot of details, even to the point of also using the phrase "past his sell-by date" in reference to John McCain and "albatross" in reference to the numerous problems facing Republican candidates. Hmmmm, could it be that Mr. Alter is reading my blog just a little too closely : ^)...

Okay, I'll grant that it's far more likely that I read too much of his scribbling (and that of other "real" journalists) than the other way around, particularly since I've only mentioned this blog to a handful of discerning cognoscenti (no pearls before swine, you know), but I certainly didn't read the article in question until after writing my own thoughts. So, it is kinda funny how people working entirely independently can reach similar conclusions. Of course, as I mentioned in the post, a lot of these theories have been bounced around a bit already, but still...it's interesting how Alter and I seem to put them all together in largely the same way. Naturally, one might argue that we are both dupes of some sort of "liberal press" echo chamber, but I'd have to aver that both our analyses, whatever their flaws, certainly have a little more thought to them than the DOA verbiage of so many AM radio and talking head gasbags.

Of course, Alter and I certainly differed on his central point (even to the extent that I relegated the subject in question to something of an afterthought). Or rather, he seems to agree with me that Huckabee will probably not get the nomination because of the perception that he is too right-wing to win in the general election, but disagrees with me insofar as I believe that perception to be correct. To be fair, Alter does make some good points: Huckabee does have some traits that would mollify the fact that he is apparently another evangelical looney (the American public has long since indicated that it can stomach a cheery biblethumper far better than the fire-and-brimstone type), and he seems less tied to Iraq than any of the other leading candidates. But, I still doubt that those things would be enough to make enough voters ignore his far-right, crazy, revival-tent religiosity. True, the overwhelming majority of voters do want a candidate who talks the God talk at least a little bit, but frankly, I think a majority of that majority are sick of the politicos who wear their religion on their sleeves. That's another one the Republican field can thank Bush for to a large extent.

In any case, this'll all be moot if, indeed, most Republican primary voters can't be convinced of the Huck-ba-crite's general election viability. Granted, he does seem to be perhaps the only candidate outside of the McRomniani triumvirate with even an outside shot at the nom (oh, did I forget Thompson? How silly of me), but I think the process is too front-loaded for Huckabee to genuinely have a shot...Hmm, that sounds familiar - wonder if I heard it somewhere before? ;^P

Weekly Weigh-in - Presidential Prognostications

Yes, not seeing any particular story I felt like commenting on this week, I decided it was time to get out the ol' trusty crystal ball and make some presidential predictions. I.e., this post will be a chance for me to later say, "I told you so," should things go the way I predict, but of course I will lard it with enough caveats and qualifications that no one can say I was wrong, if in fact, I turn out to be wrong.

So, let's get started, eh? First of all, I feel pretty confident now in asserting that former Senator and TV "star" (one has to use that term pretty loosely, after all, to apply it in this case) Fred Thompson's campaign seems more or less dead on arrival. Consider this news about a straw poll of so-called "values voters." Seems to me if Thompson's main idea was to position himself as a viable, conservative alternative to the Mormon and the pro-choice Rudy "9/11" Giuliani, he might as well throw in the towel if he's gonna get whomped by that hypocrite Huckabee. Looks to me like Republicans have by and large accepted the idea that Thompson is a lazy bugger too slothful to pull any wagon he's hitched to.

In effect that seems to leave Romney and Giuliani to duke it out for the Republican nomination. (Huckabee, in spite of his appeal to the far right, is, precisely because of that appeal, pretty much unelectable in the general election, and won't get the nod because of that...And as for McCain, well I thought the obits for him were already written. Why's he still running? He has too much suspiciously non-conservative baggage to separate him from the Mormon and the mayor for the far right, and he's passed his sell-by date relative to those two for all the other primary voters.) So again, it'll probably be Romney versus Giuliani, a prospect that ought to make Democrats fairly cheerful.

Here's why: Mormonism is just gonna be too freaky-deaky for a lot of Republican voters, especially as things go into the stretch run and they learn more about it. Of course, this is not to say that more typical Republican candidates religion-wise don't believe some pretty whacked out s*#t (see Huckabee's notion that our heaven is duck hell, to paraphrase Jon Stewart), but at least that's whacked out s*#t those voters are used to. It's their whacked out s*#t, after all. Mormonism, not so much. Couple this with the fact that Romney himself was pretty much pro-choice and pro-gay rights not so very long ago, and I don't think primary voters are likely to see his telegenic chin as enough of an asset.

Which leaves Giuliani. As noted here last week, "America's Mayor" kind of seems like an asshole, and hangs out with people who definitely are (assholes, that is), but that sort of personality has never really dissuaded Republican voters (look at Bush, look at Nixon), and I think that Giuliani's, ahem, accomplishments ("9/11, 9/11/ 9/11") will be enough to get him the nomination. Ah, but then there is that problem of him being a thrice-married, pro-choice, gay-loving, transvestite. This will not sit well with a lot of those "values voters" and many have already stated their distress at the prospect. Indeed, they have even talked of fielding a third-party candidate of some sort - someone who, presumably, would do for Giuliani what Nader did for Gore and what Perot did for the older Bush idiot - should "9/11" win the Republican nomination. And heck, what with, y'know, Bush and Iraq and all the other problems of the Republican party, that should probably be enough to make the next president a Democrat, whoever the Democratic nominee turns out to be.

And who will it be? Well, all signs point to Hillary (uh, Clinton) at this point. I, for one, am far from thrilled at this. Naturally, I know enough by now not to be thrilled by any politician, but I do find some candidates less nauseating than others. I suppose I would prefer Obama to Clinton, if only because I think he is somewhat less cynical than she is and because I think having him as president would do more to symbolize some of the things that genuinely are good about America vis-a-vis, say, Russia or Iran. Oh, and he strikes me as utterly competent, or competent as they come, for the job, which would be a nice change of pace from the last seven years. (Of course, on that score, the best thing about the race may be that any of the serious candidates in either party would almost certainly be a significant improvement over Bush.) But, again, Hillary does seem to have that air of inevitability about her. Obama will have to do something quick - or she will have to screw up badly, which seems unlikely, robot that she is - if he wants to render erroneous the writing on the wall. As it is, I think she'll be the nominee.

But speaking of caveats, yeah, I think a lot people find Clinton off-putting and unpleasant in various ways, and as noted above, I kinda understand that. But, she really does seem to be doing pretty well with the whole campaigning thing, and, let's face it, most voters are fickle mushheads with short memories and even shorter attention spans. If any campaign going can perform the slight-of-hand and misdirection necessary to make a seemingly cold and unpleasant person seem sufficiently humanoid for the general populace, it looks like it's Clinton's. Accordingly, given all the aforementioned albatrosses for any of the potential Republican nominees, I don't think Clinton's personality will be enough of a liabilty to keep her from becoming the first female president. Which would make for a pretty remarkable political comeback from the yesteryears of Hillary-care.

So there you have it: I'm going out on a limb here (okay, not really) and predicting a Hillary-"9/11" grudge match which the former first lady will win again, quite possibly with the aid of a third-party, wingnut candidate running almost entirely on a platform of great affection for embryos and intense hatred of homosexuals. And sure, that ultimate outcome (another Clinton presidency) is probably the conventional wisdom prediction at this point, but I invite you to scrutinize some of the above details, which are less CW, about why I think it will end up that way, and see just how closely they match the eventual reality.

Oh, and the election's still a year away, a lot can change, etc., etc., so if I turn out to be wrong, well, I think I've also just covered that, too :^P.

Weekly Weigh-in - Noble Monks, Bloodless Gore, Genocidal Neocons

So, Al Gore gets a vindication of sorts by winning the Nobel prize. The best thing about it, in my opinion, is that I'm sure it's got El Presidente feeling peevish in that spoiled-rich-kid way he so frequently displays. His old nemesis gets the Peace Prize and an Oscar while he looks destined to go down as one of the worst presidents in history. You'd almost think he'd want to take his ball and go home. (We should be so lucky.)

But let's put the schadenfreude aside for a moment. As for whether Gore actually deserves the prize...Well, that's another matter, and it kinda depends on how you look at it. Given that the prize is hugely politicized and has been given to such monstrous individuals as Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger (who, in light of the atrocities he helped commit in Timor, Cambodia, Chile, etc., etc., ad nauseam, is almost certainly America's worst living war criminal), the prize committee certainly could've picked a worse recipient. But I have to agree with those who find the link between Gore's global warming campaign and peace somewhat tenuous. I mean, sure, a warming planet might lead to drought, famine, competition for resources, and yes, war, but aren't there plenty of people out there whose actions are far more directly related to peace vis-a-vis war?

Consider those Burmese monks, for example. Here are people who just in the last weeks acted in the greatest traditions of non-violent protest, knowing full well that their courage might end in torture and death. Some of them were murdered in the streets, some are even now being beaten and interrogated in some hell-on-earth prison. Aren't they a little more deserving of the prize than some pudgy ex-vice president who jets around the world giving a bloodless, albeit worthwhile, PowerPoint presentation? The question answers itself. Of course, I'm sure the prize committee can hide behind the technicality that the monks' bravery came too late to be considered for this year's award, but frankly, when they've given the thing to rotten-to-the-core dirtbags like Kissinger, I think that bending the rules a bit would be far from the worst thing in the prize's long, not-always-so-illustrious history.

None of which is to suggest that a collective prize would do much for the dissidents currently suffering in Burma's gulags, but to the extent that the prize can do anything at all, it should be injected into conflicts like their struggle for freedom. Every bit of pressure on the junta would help, and indeed, if China and Russia and America and Europe and all the other nations of the earth were truly willing to force the generals out of power, I think they could do it. But, of course, Beijing, for example, can't exactly get on the generals' cases too much when they treat their own opposition exactly same...So, what're ya gonna do? Let's just use the prize to poke a finger in Bush's eye and have a grand old time at the Olympics next year...

Ah, well, bleak as some things seem, there's no reason to throw in the towel completely. Let's just work on those things we can control to some extent for now...like making sure that more genocidal leaders don't take power. To wit, have you been looking for a reason not to vote for Rudy "9/11" Giuliani? I mean, besides the apparently prick-ish personality that makes him more reminiscent of Bush, on that score at least, than anyone else in the race? Well look no further. A Newsweek article this week reports on how Giuliani is surrounding himself with neocons. That's bad enough after what these clowns got us into in Iraq, but it gets worse when you realize that one of these guys, at least, would be more suitable as an adviser to a Mussolini than an American president. I'm talking about Daniel Pipes, who, according to the article, has argued, for example, "that the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II was not the moral offense it's been portrayed as." Right, what could be wrong with forcing thousands of completely innocent people out of their homes solely because of their race? But it gets worse: we learn that Pipes has even "advocated 'razing [Palestinian] villages from which attacks are launched'" against Israel. Sure, why not? History has shown that the best way to solve racial and sectarian strife is by killing everyone on the other side and burning their houses to the ground. Oh, and then we could salt the earth. Yup, that's a great policy and has been heartily endorsed by such world leaders as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, and Genghis Khan.

Seriously, though, this is a guy the article describes as one of Giuliani's "core consultants." I.e., a racist crackpot who advocates war crimes has the ear of someone who may very well win the Republican nomination. That is seriously f'd up. Oh sure, I don't think a President Giuliani would actually listen (much) to such a lunatic, but the company you keep says a whole lot about you, and I say this alone should disqualify the pugnacious little a-hole from anyone's consideration. That said, I guess any country has a decent sized a-hole approving demographic (after all, they elected Bush), so I don't think we can count the guy out just yet, unfortunately.

Weekly Weigh-in - Saying Goodbye Is Hard to Do

Well, there were certainly lots of goings-on this past week -- the military (for once not circling the wagons) finding that Blackwater was "at fault" in that recent massacre of Iraqi civilians, the clown President protecting poor children from, uh, healthcare -- but it would seem wrong somehow if I didn't comment on the (surprisingly) continuing saga of our old friend Senator Craig.

Having done something gay, then proclaimed himself "not gay," having promised to resign from the Senate in September, then deciding not to resign pending the outcome of an attempt to withdraw his guilty plea, while suggesting that he would still resign if that attempt was unsuccessful, the decisive senator has currently decided to serve out his term, after all, in spite of a judge's decree that the plea will stand. That's another 15 months, then, of bathroom jokes and related hilarity. Better yet, as noted in this here blog back in August, it remains just another of the many electoral albatrosses -- the war, the president, healthcare, the president, corruption, the president -- hanging around the collective neck of the Republican party.

I mean, can you imagine what it'll be like if this nutty fruitcake actually sticks around until next November? The Democrats would have a field day invoking his name at every turn (sorta like Giuliani with 9/11) and will inevitably have great success in depressing turnout of the so-called "family values" voters just as the Foley scandal did in '06. Indeed, while the newsworthiness of the whole sordid affair is somewhat arguable versus war, disease, famine, and that fourth horseman, it could be much much more meaningful if the guy actually sticks it out. I mean, other than Bush himself, he would probably be the single biggest ally the Dems could have in their quest for an electoral KO. In fact, if it weren't for my continuing doubts about Hillary Clinton's electability -- though she does seem to look stronger and stronger as the months go by -- I'd say Craig's continued presence would all but ensure at least two years of complete Democratic domination. (As it is, even if he does go, the smart money is still on the Dems increasing their margins in House and Senate).

Of course, Craig's Republican buddies still have some time to twist his arm some more, and I expect some of them are already at it. That said, it's amazing how laissez-faire, or rather encouraging, some, like Arlen Specter and fellow Idahoan Mike Crap-o, are about the whole thing. It's downright bizarre behavior for politicians. I mean, encouraging Craig to stay is tantamount to endorsing political suicide for the party as a whole. It's almost as if these two guys, at least, have simply resigned themselves to an '08 slaughter and so don't care to even bother with pushing for what's clearly the right call politically. All the same, perhaps the less nihilistic GOPers will have their way with Craig eventually (um, by which I mean they'll get him to resign :).

In other news...well, like I said, there was lots to talk about this past week, but all this Schadenfreude has left me drained. I think we can wait til next week for more exciting adventures of the Bloated Mr. P.

The Weekly Weigh-in -- Slavery and Suburbia

Earlier this week, this BBP Observer observed an episode of The Daily Show wherein Jon Stewart interviewed journalist John Bowe about his new book Nobodies: Modern American Slave Labor and the Dark Side of the New Global Economy. Now, I wasn't able to gather from their brief chat a very clear idea of the book's contents -- though it seems to focus on particular cases of slave labor (or labor conditions very very close to slavery) in the US and the US territory of Saipan -- but in any case it reminded me strongly of some of my own musings on the issue.

When we consider bonded child labor in India's silk industry, child slavery in West African cocoa production, and slavery in various industries in the Brazilian Amazon, and when we further consider that the products of those slaves' labor is primarily consumed in the rich countries of the world, then we can have no doubt that slavery is, in some sense, certainly alive, if not well, in America today. Bowe's book and similar reports, of course, show that slavery is occurring clandestinely within America's borders, but in some respects, globalization has rendered the exact geographic locations in which slavery occurs less relevant than ever before. In the sense that most matters, the moral sense, it doesn't matter where the slavery occurs if we are benefiting from it -- whether it is in our backyards or some backwater country around the world, we become culpable for it, culpable in the enslavement of other human beings, when we consume the products of slave labor.

But let me revise that a bit. Actually, it does matter where the slavery is occurring inasmuch as that affects very much the stomach we as consumers have for it. Indeed, we do not have slavery anymore out in the open in America -- where it does exist, it is done in secret -- because American consumers, in general, decided long ago that we could not tolerate seeing such ugliness right before our eyes. If the slavery is occurring far far away, however, it is another matter -- out of sight, out of mind. The American public and the American government are far far more tolerant of slavery in the Third World, where it is unlikely to put a damper on their evening TV viewing. In some ways, it as if America, uncomfortable with slavery at home, has simply exported it around the globe.

Oh, but perhaps I will come across as too cynical (though I sometimes wonder if there is such a thing). The truth, to be sure, is that the vast majority of American consumers don't even know that some of the products they consume are tainted by slavery. Or, at the worst, having seen or read one of the rare news stories on the subject, they engage in a kind of convenient self-delusion, "forgetting" what they've learned when they want some new silk sheets, a box of chocolates, or a hardwood floor of Brazilian "teak."

And that gets at one of the very real dangers of globalization and the truly global supply chains that it entails. If I buy a product that has passed from a slave to a slaver to a middleman to a processor and on and on along the supply chain until it comes around the world and winds up in some mall down the street, then it can, indeed, be quite difficult to know of its sordid provenance. If I am being utterly honest, then I have to admit that even though I have learned far more about these labor abuses than most people and have made a strict effort not to purchase products that I know to be tainted by them, there are quite probably still products I do purchase that are tainted in some way, if only because I do not know where they all are coming from. It is so difficult for an individual consumer to know the origin of every product he or she purchases, much less every ingredient within those products -- it would require an almost encyclopedic intellect.

Ah, but here we return again to our old, ugly friend the BPP. Individuals are not capable of regulating such things, but governments, with all their resources, certainly are, or should be. And the US gov't, in fact, has laws on the books prohibiting the importation of products produced with slave labor. But does it enforce them? Hardly, not with all the corporations that would lose billions of dollars if they were enforced, and not with all the money that politicians receive to make sure those slave-tainted goods keep rolling in.

But then again, what is government if not a collection of individuals, a collective reflection of all of us? By no means am I suggesting that we as consumers can abdicate our responsibility by saying that the gov't should take care of it. Certainly, the gov't should, but it is up to us to force the government's hand. It is our hand, in some way, after all. And maybe, just maybe, if we try hard enough, we can someday end this scourge that has stained the collective soul of humanity since time immemorial.

- - - - - - - - -

But speaking of grim situations that afford only the faintest glimmer of hope, it would be remiss not to mention the ongoing uprising in Burma (Myanmar). For now, suffice it to say that our thoughts are with the Burmese people, and though we fear the worst, we will hope for the best.

The Weekly Weigh-in -- Black Death Edition

So, a few weeks ago your friendly BBPO wrote a post about how the US gov't has harassed and abused whistleblowers in Iraq who dared to speak out against the corruption of numerous government contractors. The post linked to an msnbc story detailing how these courageous people were variously fired, demoted, imprisoned, and interrogated for trying to stop illegal arms sales, reconstruction fraud, and the like. One even spent 97 days in a US military prison in Iraq for speaking out.

Of course, those whistleblowers were Americans. This week we've gotten a clearer picture of what it means to be an Iraqi who gets in the way of an American company.

In an incident last weekend, armed employees of the much loathed security company Blackwater allegedly slaughtered 11 Iraqi civilians without provocation. And as for that "allegedly" -- did it really happen like that? Or were the dead Iraqis insurgents, as Blackwater claims? Well, given the reports, the answer to that first question, unfortunately, is "probably." Word today from the Iraqi authorities is that they have a videotape proving that the Blackwater guards fired first, and I doubt very much that anything will emerge to show that said authorities can't tell the difference between a bunch of dead insurgents and 11 unarmed civilians.

In any case, the incident has brought further reporting that Blackwater employees have a wide reputation for terrorizing the civilian populace. An excellent, if stomach-turning, piece by Michael Hirsh even describes an incident in which a Blackwater employee got drunk and "boasted to his friends that he was going to kill someone " before stumbling away and doing just that.

What is most disturbing of all, however, is not that certain despicable people have committed despicable acts in this war zone -- history records enough atrocities that this should not surprise us -- but that the Bush administration is so complicit in these crimes by dint of the protections it affords to the criminals. By the laws, so-called, that the administration has created in Iraq and foisted upon the Iraqi gov't and civilians, it has given these private contractor paramilitaries immunity, apparently, from any form of criminal prosecution. If a Blackwater employee murders an Iraqi, the Iraqis are powerless to punish him, and the US cannot prosecute him under the rules that govern the regular American military. Is it any wonder, then, that some of these armed-to-the-teeth paramilitaries would commit murder, knowing that they will never face any consequences? And is it any wonder, by the way, as Hirsh notes in his article, that the US effort to "win the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi populace hasn't been working out so great? When Blackwater guards are the ones protecting the State department diplomats charged with that mission, I gotta say, no, it isn't any wonder at all.

So yeah, the Bush administration, for all its lofty rhetoric, protects cold-blooded murderers working for the US gov't in Iraq. Meanwhile, back in America, Bush has recently vowed that he will veto a bill to provide health coverage to millions of uninsured children.

Weekly Weigh-in #2 - Abe bye-bye edition

Item 1:

Yes, with the news that Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has decided to step down, we would like to think that this mighty blog has claimed its second victim. Could it have been reading our devastating critique of his recent, risible cabinet appointments that spurred Abe san to commit his political hara kiri? Okay, probably not, but a lil blogger can dream, can't he? And, I don't think it would too bold to say that it was mildly prescient to commentate on Abe's fecklessness so soon before his departure, if for no other reason than that nary an American outlet (that I saw, anyway) seemed to think the Endo ending to be worth even a shred of discussion. Why, you'd almost get the impression that Americans (generally speaking, of course) are completely provincial and narcissistic when it comes to international politics :^)...

No doubt, anyhow, that some Japanese folk predicted Abe's end was nigh, but I have actually read that even in Nippon (see the link), people were, by-and-large, quite surprised by the announcement. Not to be narcissistic myself, but could it be that even they, after having observed America's stay-the-course-even-if-it-means-driving-off-a-cliff leader for the last six years, and taking Abe to be a knucklehead of the same ilk, couldn't imagine that he'd actually throw in the towel?

Well, in any case, at long last, Mr. Abe, you have done something right - both for your country and your party. You have spared everyone the trauma of more of your bungling...

Man, imagine if America were so lucky: why, this particular national nightmare, at least, would have been over after Katrina. I mean, many could make the argument, of course, that Bush had made plenty of errors well before then to justify his resignation (justify, mind you, in this magical fairytale in which he admits and takes responsiblity for his errors), but hardly anyone with more than a half a brain would deny that "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie!" should've sealed the deal (again, in fairytale land). Alas, we are doomed to live with reality, stubborn, idiotic reality, and will have to do so for another 14 months.

Thing, the second...

In a story not unrelated, perhaps, to last week's item on FDA and HHS corruptibility, Newsweek reports that the number of deaths, disabilities, and other unpleasantries linked to prescription medicines nearly tripled between 1998 and 2005. According to the article, FDA spokeslady Sandy Walsh says the FDA ain't disputin' the accuracy of those numbers: "[They're] consistent with FDA's report tracking, but they don't tell us why." (Presumably, she said this with a shrug and look of puzzlement.)

Well, here's a wild guess for ya, Sandy: maybe, just maybe, as the FDA has transformed itself more and more into a pharmaceutical industry lackey over those years, some unsafe medicines got approved for the sake of good old-fashioned greed. Oh, and around 15,000 people died in 2005 as a result. Still...15,000 dead people vs. piles of moolah...hmm, 15,000 dead people vs. piles of moolah...Which would you choose? Well hey, the great news for Big Pharma and the FDA is that you don't have to choose - you can, like, totally get both! Awesome!...

Oh, wait...

The Weekly Weigh-in (Inaugural Edition)

Well, guess what? Your friendly BBPO just went and got himself a job. Which explains the shortage of posts this week. See, I figured I'd get to just sit around in my sweatpants surfing the web all day like most bloggers, but through a series of strange coincidences and (what I can only assume to be) misunderstandings, someone decided they would pay me to sit at a different desk all day - and I don't even get to wear sweats! :^( But, money is useful ("Explain how." "Money can be exchanged for goods and services."), so I figured I should take it.

Unfortunately, jobbing significantly limits the time I have for blogging, so I decided I'll have to scale back the frequency of my posts. And so, I give you the Weekly Weigh-in, a short summary of some of the BBP's more disgusting activities:

1. We start out - why not? - with our old buddy Larry "Wide Stance" Craig, who has announced that he will indeed fight to retain the Senate seat he had just said he'd resign the week before. Crazy. Not much else to say that I haven't said, except that it's a bit amusing that Craig now wants to take back his resignation, much like he now wishes to recant his earlier guilty plea on the disorderly conduct charge (which led to the resignation). Sounds like somebody needs to think things out a little more clearly before he makes his major decisions.

2. Iraq's top corruption fighter has resigned, basically saying that the Iraqi government is so corrupt he was fighting an unwinnable battle. What's more, he had begun to fear for his life, on account of all the death threats. Not altogether unreasonably, he suggests that the US should stop supporting said government, although it's not entirely clear that any alternatives would be any better. Indeed, it remains hard to imagine any way that Bush can extricate America from the mess he's made over there, regardless of whatever Pollyannaish spin General Petraeus spouts in his testimony before Congress next week.

3. And finally, another disturbing story about the Department of Health and Human Services and the FDA. Seems they approved an implantable microchip that causes elevated rates of cancer in lab rats. To be fair, it's not clear that there will be a similar risk for humans, but the evidence is disturbing enough to have prompted a number of doctors quoted in the article to say that further research ought to have been conducted. What's more, seems that former head of the HHS and laughable, non-candidate for president Tommy "Tom-Tom" Thompson was given scads of cash and stocks by the maker of the chip mere months after leaving the department. Illegal? Probably not, given the almost non-existent anti-corruption laws in today's America. But shady as a snake's belly? You bet.

But then, they gots ta feed the ol' BBP.

Just when you thought is was over

Well, well, guess who's having second thoughts about resigning? Yes, it appears that Larry Craig just doesn't know when to give up. Most people tend to go ahead and do so after having, like, said they were going to - it's kinda hard to retract a widely publicized and humiliating resignation. But, looks like Craig might try.

What on earth would make him think he could pull this off? Hard to say, but I'd guess it's the same massively delusional brain that may have actually convinced the Senator that he's "not gay." "Sure," says said brain, "I like to have sex with other men in public restrooms, but that doesn't make me gay!" Well, actually, it does, but it seems there's no limit to how far a hypocrite-politician can twist semantics. Of course, I can't actually say if Craig really believes his absurd "not gay" claims, or if he just has no compunction about lying. Either way, he's obviously unfit to remain in office (much like the vast majority of his congressional colleagues).

But, perhaps he will try, and frankly I'd like to see it. As noted here before, it'll just prolong the damage to the GOP, and, while your BBPO is no fan of the Democrats - the inevitable beneficiaries of Republican missteps in this, alas, two-party system - he is willing to view them as the lesser of two evils for the time being.

So, yeah, fight the power, Larry. You can the beat the rap!

"Winning" the War

So, a new Newsweek article shows the reality belying the lunatic unreality of the Bush administration's argument that the "surge" is working. Here's a taste:

It was their last stand. Kamal and a handful of his neighbors were hunkered down on the roof of a dun-colored house in southwest Baghdad two weeks ago as bullets zinged overhead. In the streets below, fighters from Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army fanned out and blasted away with AK-47s and PKC heavy machine guns. Kamal is a chubby 44-year-old with two young sons, and he and his friends, all Sunnis, had been fighting similar battles against Shiite militiamen in the Amel neighborhood for months. They jumped awkwardly from rooftop to rooftop, returning fire. Within minutes, however, dozens of uniformed Iraqi policemen poured into the street to support the militiamen. Kamal ditched his AK on a rooftop and snuck away through nearby alleys. He left Amel the next day... [emphasis added]

See, whatever Bush says about reduced violence (and bear in mind that thousands of Iraqis are still dying every month), it doesn't mean a thing so long as the government is also involved in the sectarian bloodletting. I.e., so long as "Iraqi policemen" are helping Shiite militiamen in their on-going pogrom against Sunnis, so long as al-Maliki and other politicians are supported by and beholden to such militias, things are just not going to turn out well. It wouldn't matter how many troops America sends - it will all be for naught if the Shiites and Sunnis (and let's not forget the Kurds) can't produce a united government between them.

So, can they? Well, so far, not so good, if the stories of people like Kamal and thousands of others are to count for anything in this debate (which, y'know, they probably ought to). And unfortunately, regardless of any slight decrease in violence that may be occurring for now, there has been no indication that the sectarian divisions show any signs of healing, which, alas, is not too surprising - people tend to hold grudges against people they perceive to be responsible for murdering their family members, stealing their land, destroying their businesses, etc., etc.

Accordingly, one has to wonder about the wisdom (duh) of Bush's stubborn "srategeries" for Iraq.

Of course, don't put it past the administration to eventually employ a deeply cynical definition of victory, which the article hints at here:

When Gen. David Petraeus goes before Congress next week to report on the progress of the surge, he may cite a decline in insurgent attacks in Baghdad as one marker of success. In fact, part of the reason behind the decline is how far the Shiite militias' cleansing of Baghdad has progressed: they've essentially won.

Yes, someday all the Sunnis may be purged from Shiite areas, and all the Shiites from Sunni areas, and members of both groups may all be driven from the Kurdish north. And hey, maybe then, after thousands have been killed, and millions driven from their homes - after, that is, Iraq has been torn into three along sectarian and ethnic lines - maybe things will be relatively peaceful. Maybe there just won't be any killing left to do. And maybe that, in the end, is how Bush and his cronies will find a way of "winning" the war.

Sayonara, Endo san

You know, the BBP is really, really B (the first B), such that he's pretty much everywhere at once - kinda like Baby Jesus. Yup, he's not merely an American, but truly a citizen of the world.

Sometimes he even likes to put on one of those big diapers and roll around like a sumo, as evidenced by the latest scandal from Japan: Today, Agriculture Minister Takehiko Endo has decided to resign, mere days after being appointed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Seems that in a bid to improve the corruption-tainted image of his government, Abe decided to appoint a guy who, uh, has some corruption issues of his own. Probably not a good idea. In fact, I'd say it makes Abe the number one contender for the crown of most bone-headed political appointments currently held by undisputed champion George "The Decider" Bush.

See, this is, like, the third agriculture minister Abe's had in the last few months, and both of the first two had to quit because of corruption also. (Well, actually, the first one didn't quit, exactly, but committed suicide, which made it hard, I guess, to keep showing up for work.) So, for Abe not to have vetted this latest guy properly is arguably as moronic as Bush's all-time classic appointments like Bernard Kerik, Harriet Miers, and John Bolton.

That said, it's amusing to note that Endo is losing his job over an amount of money that reportedly comes to about $10,000, which is pretty amateurish when compared to the American Big Leagues of political graft. Does this mean Japan is better at punishing corruption than the US? Probably not. But it's hard to imagine how many more of Bush's buddies would have to go if they got hounded out for a measly ten thousand bucks. Accordingly, I'd say Abe's got his work cut out for him if he truly wants to challenge the dimwit-in-chief.

Missed it by that much

So, the soon-to-be former Senator Craig announced his resignation this morning (though it won't take effect until Sept. 30, I gather). What a punk. Besides being a hypocrite, a corporate lapdog, and surprisingly unstylish for a gay guy (though this outfit is pretty (unintentionally) fabulous, I must say), he had to go ahead and wait an extra half-day before giving up the ghost, thereby proving my prognosticating to be less than perfectly accurate. Way uncool. O sure, the gist of my guess was right - that he would do it when it would receive the least possible attention (and Friday afternoon and Saturday morning are interchangeable on that score, I guess) but I kinda picked Friday, so I'm a bit disappointed.

On the other hand, I hear Larry Craig had to resign today, so that cheers me up some.

From the Mouths of Babes

Well, Larry Craig's walk to the gallows continues, and, as I predicted, it doesn't look like it will be a very long one by political standards - nothing like the grueling marathons turned in by the late Messrs. Gonzales and Rumsfeld, anyhow...Which tells you something pretty disturbing: engage in some questionable bathroom antics, and you'll be "pointed towards the exit" (ha ha; see the arrest report) pretty quickly, while if you are demonstrably incompetent and, ahem, untruthful, you can enjoy the support of the President for months on end. Which is not to say that Craig doesn't deserve to go - for being a hypocritical asshole, not for being gay - but just that some things that constitute a capital offense, politically-speaking, seem a little absurd when compared to other crimes that don't...

In any case (Craig's imminent departure notwithstanding), the Bloated Body Politic continues to gorge at the groaning buffet table that is America. Indeed, his appetite is as ravenous as ever. Today, in fact, provides a fine example of how he knows no limits; he is even willing, it appears, to steal sustenance from the mouths of babies. Yes, that's right - the health and well-being of the tiniest, most defenseless Americans is being put at risk because the baby formula industry wants to protect its profits. And who's gonna help them do it? Why, good old Mr. Politic, of course, in this case as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services and "a former chairman of the Republican National Committee," among others. See, these people gots to eat (and buy mansions, and get jobs as formula industry spokespeople and such), and if they gotta put the health of millions of babies at risk to do it, then by golly, they're gonna do it. Yup, it makes me proud. In fact, kinda makes me wanna put on some good ol' Lee Greenwood.

Like I said

Well, that didn't take long, did it?

Only a few hours after that last post comes this report from msnbc titled "GOP lawmakers tell Craig to resign." Not that it wasn't utterly predictable - there's just no good angle on this from a Republican point of view. Best to just get it over and done with as soon as possible. Only question now, as I said, is how long Senator "Wide Stance" wants to hold out for. And, since my crystal ball seems to be working pretty well for the easy questions, I'm gonna say...expect a resignation in the next day or two (maybe he waits 'til Friday afternoon to minimize public attention).

Of course, he is obviously in deep denial about the whole being gay thing, so maybe he can also convince himself that his career isn't dead.

My Mistake

According to Senator Craig: "I am not gay. I never have been gay."

So, scratch that last post, I guess...

Seriously, though, sad as it is, I am a little amused by the political consequences of Craig's hopeless denial: by trying to hang on, he will only prolong and increase the damage to his party (he himself is finished, no doubt). The convenient thing for the GOP would be if he just resigned immediately - get it over with and out of the news. Instead, Craig seems determined to fight on, which will only keep the sordid details in the news for that much longer. Democrats should hope (and when I say "should", I mean "should" by the deeply cynical standards of the BBP) that he drags this out as long as possible - it'll just do that much more to depress Republican voters, energize Democrats, and have corollary effects on both party's fundraising...

That said, I wouldn't expect this to go on too much longer if the Republican leadership can get its way. They want Craig out (uh, of politics, that is) as soon as possible, and I'm sure they are already working on him to end the misery. The only question, then, is just how stubborn Craig really is. (Hopefully (again, by BBP standards), as stubborn as Bush was about Gonzo...and Rummy...and Wolfowitz...and...)

Seamy Senate Sex Scandal

So sad.

Of course, the Body Politic has all the usual desires. We've discussed his love of gravy, and naturally he likes to get freaky every now again. For the most part, his tastes are pretty run-of the-mill - you know, chubby interns half his age, or the occasional Beltway escort girl...But sometimes, he feels a little "confused", a little ashamed. Sometimes his is a love that dare not speak its name...particularly when doing so openly would be seen as massively hypocritical.

And thus we have the latest in a series of GOP sex scandals, Idaho Senator Larry Craig getting caught in an airport restroom soliciting a police officer for... well, I'm not sure exactly what he was after (and I don't care to imagine), but it's safe to assume he wasn't asking his stall-neighbor if he could "spare a square".

Honestly, I don't know what it is with these Republican legislators. I mean, frankly, your friendly BBP Observer (or BBPO) is generally of a live-and-let-live kinda mindset when it comes to consenting adults, but I have to admit a mild thrill of Schadenfreude when a hypocrite like Craig gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar (um, so to speak). Seriously, what is it that compels a homosexual person to join a political party that gleefully and cynically demonizes homosexuals? How can a guy like Craig get up there and bash gay marriage when he's out looking for a far less committed sort of gay relationship in public restrooms? Is it really just that old thing about some of the most ardently homophobic people being closeted gays themselves?

Well, whatever it is, it really is a little sad. Can't imagine why these sort of guys didn't just become Democrats (after all, it's clearly not genuine dedication to party principles that makes 'em Republican). At least as Democrats they could be (relatively) open about their sexuality. Of course, I suppose with a guy as old as Craig, even Democrats were a lot less gay-friendly when he got into politics. So, maybe he got started as a Republican when being a Democrat wasn't significantly preferable, openly-gay politician-wise, and just found it was too late to play for the other team (um, again, so to speak) when things got more tolerant across the aisle.

We're so sorry, Uncle Albert

Okay, not really.

Yes, after months of speculation and near-universal condemnation, Alberto Gonzales has finally resigned as Attorney General. And here we were just writing about him yesterday. Has the mighty BBP already claimed its first victim? Well, we'd love to take credit, but it probably has a bit more to do with all those dastardly politicians who "dragged [Gonzales] through the mud", as Bush so righteously put it. You know, dirty-trick Democrats like Arlen Specter and Lindsey Graham and...oh, wait.

Yes, though we can all be glad to see Gonzo go, it's a little hard to see this as the dawn of good governance, the beginning of a complete scrub-down, if you will, of our old buddy, Mr. Politic. Indeed, it is a testament to the sheer steadfastness of Bush et al. (get it, "al"?) in their corruption that Gonzales was able to hang on for so long. After months of congressional testimony detailing that he was either a) incredibly stupid, such that he couldn't remember major meetings and decisions; b) a bald-faced liar; or, most probably, c) some mixture of the two, it is only now, after the (bi-partisan) chorus of calls for his resignation had grown almost deafening that he has finally gotten the axe (or did he fall on his sword, as Bush claims?; it's so hard to tell with these things). And so, it is hard to take this as a sign of general improvement, except perhaps to think (but how many times have we thought so before?) that we have seen and just ascended from the nadir of Bush's presidency.

In any case, we can reasonably hope that the replacement will be better, if only because the Dems won't let Bush appoint someone too awful (like his butler, or Barney, perhaps). But better than utterly unqualified won't be saying much, and, after all, chances are it will be a lawyer of some sort.

Whistleblowing

So, let's dive right into this muck, shall we?

We begin with a heart-warming story about the war from msnbc: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20430153/. Go ahead, take a gander...

Now, that's a truer picture of the Iraq war than you're ever going to get from your AM radio blowhards or the political hacks they shill for. The whole thing is a vast disaster that has attracted the most verminous elements on both sides - i.e., amongst Iraqis and Americans - and where anyone with a hint of virtue has virtually no chance of making a difference. And, when you consider that it's the Bush administration's Justice Department under his old buddy Gonzales (along with, for example, the military they control) that is protecting the vermin and punishing the virtuous, it ought to make anyone reconsider their defense of them and their policies. These people are thugs - sure, they wear suits and vacation at Kennebunkport and are feted with vomitous hagiographies on Fox News - but they are thugs, all the same, and it is largely the manipulability of the public at large that allows them to proceed with their crimes...Oh, and please spare me the "plausible deniablity" claim that is always trotted out in defense: "Well, Bush wouldn't know about this, Cheney wouldn't know, Gonzales wouldn't know - they're too far removed." Please. Cheney's old company is forcibly detaining whistleblowers (not to mention stealing millions, if not billons, in taxpayer money), and you think they don't know? Ah, but perhaps Bush apologists would say I'm putting words in their mouths. So, which is it, then: Bush and his cronies somehow don't know about the widely reported corruption and are thus unwilling to support those trying to end it (which would be yet another sign of their extreme incompetence), or, more likely, they know all about it and are ruthlessly signing off on the efforts to destroy those who speak out against their corporate benefactors/beneficiaries?

Introduction: from a nearby table...

Well, it's another day, and the bloated body politic is swarming darkly with flies. Oh, don't worry, Mr. Politic is not dead - far from it. He is simply grossly gluttonous, while his hygiene leaves much to be desired. The crumbs of corruption are scattered thickly down the front of his fine three-piece suit, and the gravy of lobbyist largesse runs in rivulets down his greasy triple-chin. The bloat, indeed, is not that of a corpse, but merely good old-fashioned American obesity.

Yes, he is not a pretty sight, and thus, in some sense, an unlikely subject for our observation; certainly, the temptation to simply avert one's gaze is almost irresistible. But he is, after all, an important figure in our lives, and therefore ignored at our own peril. And so here, at the BBP, we will keep a disgusted eye on him. And who knows, perhaps if he senses he is being scrutinized, he will try to be a little less ill-mannered (he has been known, on occasion, to dab daintily at his chin with a napkin, creating a tiny smear of semi-cleanliness which is quickly engulfed again), and if nothing else, we will learn little bit about his ways and this world in which we live.